Apples

I have an intellectual axe to grind today. Well, actually I have two, but I’m going to avoid one of them and rant about the other. What I’d like to discuss is a skill that the majority of the population is completely lacking: critical thinking. Yes, I’ve spoken about this a very many times, but today I’m going to illustrate the pitfalls of going through life without thinking critically about what you read and hear by using an example from one of my classes last year.

In one of my Mediaeval history classes last year there was a student who just didn’t have a clue. A complete account of the most classic moments involving her stupidity would take far too long, so I’ll use one event to demonstrate my point. In order to understand the thoughts and behaviour of people who lived in the Middle Ages, one must understand that the thought-world they lived in was dominated by religion. Thus, we started the course by reading some of the more important sections of the Bible. When we got to the part about Adam and Eve this clueless student put her hand up and mentioned that the fateful apple that doomed the couple is an ancient pagan symbol for wisdom, and suggested that this story may thus reflect an earlier, decidedly pagan, root of early Christianity.

At this point I’d like to pause, and ask if you can see what is wrong with her analysis? Are there any questions you can think to ask about her evidence, argument, or conclusion? Think about it for a few seconds before I continue.

This student’s analysis reveals a complete lack of critical thinking skills. This deficiency, aside from making her look stupid, also caused her argument to fall very wide of the mark. In order to prove that the “pagan apple=wisdom” somehow found its way into the Bible there is a long series of questions that need to be answered so that a chain of causation can be established. Without proof of a causal chain, no historical argument has any value.

So, exactly which ancient pagans used the apple as a symbol for wisdom? Where and when did they live? How could they have had any connection with the man (yes, it was almost certainly a man) who wrote down the Adam and Eve story? Unless you can answer all these questions, and more, such an argument is useless. Well, this student revealed her ignorance by not being able to answer any of the questions, though if you knew her you would not have been surprised. Thus, the irrelevance of her idea was made abundantly clear.

Now, let’s try and answer these questions and see if we can come to a real conclusion here. Is there a connection? Did she just miss it through her inability to examine the evidence? Well, though I am no expert on pre-historical Europe, or the thousands of groups of people who lived in all of its various regions, I am aware that certain ancient Celtic groups did indeed use the apple as a symbol for wisdom. But, since at least 99% of the world’s population still thinks the word “Celtic” refers to an ethnicity, you will quickly meet a discouraging wall of ignorance if you follow this line of inquiry. From what I can tell, the specific groups in question lived in either France or Britain. Unfortunately, this actually covers many dozens of different ethnic and cultural groups who all happened to speak a related group of languages, which we now refer to as Celtic (or Gaelic, which is closer to the actual word). There was, however, a group of Celtic-speaking people who were settled in Asia Minor (modern Turkey), who may or may not have used this exact symbol.

Now, the people who wrote this part of the Bible belonged to a semi-nomadic, Semitic-speaking tribe that was eventually referred to as the “habiru”, or Hebrews. They lived in many areas of the Middle East at this time, though probably not in Asia Minor. Is it possible that the European pagans and the Aramaic monotheists met up and assimilated each other’s symbols? Probably not. Though I won’t rule it out, I would certainly laugh at anyone who tried to make this argument, even if they referred to the group of Celts in Turkey. Thus, the student’s conclusion is easily proven wrong with the application of only a tiny fraction of critical thought.

However, her argument is also disproved by following a completely different line of questioning. Had she merely asked a few more questions about the “apple” she may even have discovered it. Here are my questions: Was the Bible written in English? What language was it written in? When, how, and by who was it translated into English? Does the word apple mean the same thing in these languages?

Allow me to quickly answer these questions. This section of the Bible was written in ancient Hebrew. Eventually it was translated to Greek and Latin, and from there into Old English, or Anglo-Saxon. From there it was translated, or updated, into Middle English, and now Modern English. Though I’m not sure what the word in question was in the original text, it was translated into Old English as “apple”. However, in Old English there were two words that could have been chosen, since they both meant the same thing. These words were “apple” and “wasten”, and they both meant what the modern word “fruit” means. After 1066 the French-speaking Normans conquered England, and Old English merged with French to create two recognizable languages. First came the French dialect known as Anglo-Norman, and then came what we know as Middle English, Chaucer’s language. By this time the word “wasten” had been replaced with the French word “fruit”, and “apple” had transformed into the word for the specific fruit that we would recognize. This little change in meaning was missed when the Bible was updated, since to whoever was updating it, “apple” was not a foreign word. He probably thought it was referring to a specific fruit rather than the generic fruit that it meant in Old English. Thus, we still see the word as “apple” and think of apples, when we should be seeing the word “fruit”, and we should probably be thinking about peaches or apricots. So, the “apple” that supposedly represents wisdom, isn’t even an apple at all.

Ok, that was a little long-winded, but I hope it gets my point across. The things we think about our history can change drastically if we merely think about them critically. I hope you learned a lesson today, and I really hope you learn how to apply it. Ciao per ora, and keep thinking.

Empty

These last few months have drained me immensely. Between the hardest semester ever and all sorts of moving things and throwing parties, I'm totally spent. If I was just tired it wouldn't be so bad, but I've become mentally exhausted as well. I can't sit down for long enough to think about anything stimulating, and when people ask me things along the lines of "what's new?" I end up drawing a blank. Usually I have something to say, an issue to discuss, an injustice to lament, an indignant rant just waiting to be released. But now I've got nothing. It feels like there's a fog inside my head that solidifies and prevents any thoughts from moving around in there. Maybe I've spent all my intellectual energy on my essays and have nothing left for regular life. With that in mind, let me tell you what I've been writing lately, since it's so much better than anything I've been typing here:

-An essay concerning the formation of national identities through sport. I used a case study of the 1998 World Cup in France to explain how French nationalism and national identity were changed drastically by the success and composition of the French team.

-An essay linking the rise of the Cult of the Virgin Mary in the late 14th century to the portrayal of women found in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, one of the very best of the courtly romances.

-A history of the Canon Law concerning marriage, the battle over control of marriage fought by the Church and the nobility in the early Middle Ages, and the eventual effects on the interpretation of "legitimate marriage" (mainly highlighting the conflict between consent and consummation) on court cases form 16th-century Geneva.

-A refutation of Martin Luther's doctrine of "justification through faith alone" using the Bible and other works on Theology that he would have had access to. The result is that Luther's theology is found to be incomplete and inconsistent.

-A short recap of the events surrounding the formation and destruction of the Paris Commune in 1870.

-I've also written 2 essays on wartime Vietnam, and still need to write one about a 16th-century religious woman in Spain who was put on trial by the Inquisition. The trial transcript is fascinating...and a little frightening.

So yeah, maybe I'm just spent. If you'd like to hear more about these and other issues concerning soccer, history (mainly Mediaeval), or theology, don't hesitate to ask; at least it will give me something to talk about. Ciao for now.

Natale

So what exactly does Christmas time mean to me? I've been wracking my brain for about an hour as I try to fall asleep, but the confusion is getting to me. I realized that unlike most things, I don't have a very strong opinion concerning Christmas, except that I want to smack people who spell it X-Mas for a few reasons. Christ and X are pronounced rather differently...so the religious aspect aside, its stupidity is rather offensive. Anyways, here's the thoughts I've been having.

I really enjoy Christmas because it gives me a chance to see my family. I have tons of cousins and uncles and aunts, and seeing my grandparents on big occasions like this is always fun. I also don't like the fact that I have to see my family. The memory of so many ruined holidays returns every time we get into the car to drive to Christmas dinner, and sometimes the relived pain and despair is overwhelming. Also, this year will be especially hard because one of my grandfathers is gone, and one of my grandmothers is in the hospital. In all though, I think the good outweighs the bad here.

I also like Christmas because I'm a jerk to my loved ones for most of the year, and giving them something nice is a good way to say "thanks for not kicking me out". Receiving gifts is hard though. I never know how to react whether I like the gift or not. In fact, though I love to be the centre of attention most of the time, formal occasions such as holidays and birthdays confuse me. I guess I'm not comfortable with somebody celebrating something for me, or giving me something. This makes sense since I'm also uncomfortable with compliments.

The problem I have with gift-giving though, is that I'm a socialist, and this capitalist feeding-frenzy of consumerism offends me in many ways. The bookstore I work in makes half of its money for the year just in the month of December. This is insane. People have become so caught up with spending their money on useless crap that they get crazy. God, the corporations must love what sheep we've all become.

The religious aspect of Christmas confuses me as well. I mentioned above how I hate when people spell it X-Mas, and one of the reasons I feel this way is that the entire point of the holiday is to celebrate the birth of Christ, not X. Yes, it has been taken over by secular aspects such as trees, gifts, and Santa Claus. Yes, many non-Christians celebrate it as a secular holiday. These facts are indisputable. However, whatever you feel about the day, it is still a Christian holiday. Attempts to rid the day of its religious significance, or to de-Christianize it, are outright insane. You can't co-opt someone's religious festival and then take the religion out of it. Christmas is a religious day, and if you don't like it then don't celebrate it. In the meantime, however, don't tell me how to celebrate my religious beliefs because you don't have the right to.

Another thing that bothers me it that I'm technically not allowed to say Merry Christmas to customers at work. Can someone please explain to me how this makes any sense? Wishing someone well while I celebrate a day that is important to me IS NOT offensive. If you find it is, then clearly you have some sorting out to do in your own life, and I'm not your problem. Happy Wednesday is not an offensive statement, and so Merry Christmas cannot be either. And even if you aren't Christian, and don't celebrate Christmas, my wishing you a good day on what is a special occasion to me can not possibly offend a rational person. It would be like getting mad at a guy who tells you to have a nice day when his daughter is getting married. Just because it's not your daughter does not mean that he has to keep his joy and well-wishing to himself. Also, where the hell is this respect for diversity I've been hearing so much about? If Christmas offends you then you're obviously not the tolerant, enlightened person you think you are. Oh, and if anyone wants to argue with me about the "pushing my religion on others" or about the "historic injustices of Christianity" then bring it on. I welcome reasonable debate, just not idiots.

Right, so do I like Christmas then? yeah, I guess I do. Though the excitement I felt as a kid is gone, I still think it's a special day. So, with all the ranting out of the way, MERRY CHRISTMAS and BUON NATALE!!

Credo in Onum Deum

The other day someone asked me very seriously why I am still Catholic, despite my intellect and education. My first response was to take offense. Obviously this person is incapable of believing that an intelligent person can be religious, which is completely ridiculous; most of mankind's most brilliant minds have been religious, so clearly this is a misguided view. It's funny, people always say that the religious are intolerant, when the most ignorant and intolerant people I have ever met have all been atheists.

So my next response was to try and address the problem that this person had with religion. I've mentioned my own views here already (that most of what people have been taught/write/learn about religion is not true, that the good religion has brought to humanity far outweighs the bad, and that anything we create can be misused, no matter how good), but today I'll quickly discuss another view that is quickly supplanting/supplementing my own. In her incredible book A History of God, Karen Armstrong (who is a genius, by the way) explains that the difficulty modern Western people have with religion stems mainly from the time of the Enlightenment, and Scientific Revolution in Europe. During this time, people stopped reading the Bible symbolically and metaphorically, and began to read it literally. This literal interpretation of religion -aside from being useless and misguided- led directly to the "death of God" in Western society. A literal reading allows people to use science to disprove the stories. Once one story is shown to be objectively false, doubt is cast over the entire system. According to this line of reasoning, since science cannot prove God's existence, He must not exist. This literal reading also creates fanatics/idiots who end up arguing that dinosaurs never existed and that the earth is a few thousand years old. Thus, the entire manner in which our society views religion is misguided, since it is not the way that any religious figure meant their work to be read, nor does it correspond to the way that every other civilization ever has viewed religion. We just happen to have gotten it all wrong somewhere along the line.

My final response was to come up with a list of reasons why I am Catholic. I did this partly to explain why I am religious despite my education, and partly to explain why I am Catholic as opposed to anything else.

1- Catholicism's complex theology is intellectually satisfying. It is possible to examine and debate this theology infinitely, and I love intellectual debate.

2- The Catholic Church's insistence on the use of music, art, and poetry to express religious values and ideas makes sense to me. Religion is emotional, not cerebral. The Church seems to understand that religion is as transcendent, subjective, personal, and emotional as art and music are. In fact, religion itself can be described as art, though I won't get into that tonight.

3- I am impressed by the Church's unceasing attempt, both now and throughout its history, to create a world of morality, charity, and social justice. Sure, they've got it wrong quite a few times, I won't deny that. However, the good the Church has done for humanity is staggering, and cannot be dismissed.

4- The Church's rituals -called Sacraments- strike a deep emotional chord. They are both exciting and comforting.

5- Catholic piety takes the form of intense devotional practices, and this form of spiritual expression is very emotionally appealing to me.

6- The Church's insistence on tradition over novelty reflects my own worldview. Necessary change is good, change for change's sake is not. Inter Mutanda Constantia.

7- The cultural and intellectual heritage of the Catholic Church is the single most significant force behind Western history. We would not be who we are today without it, and I, as a historian, feel drawn to such an amazing institution.

Ok, so there you have it. Half an hour of typing, a bunch of emotional, religious, mumbo-jumbo, and you have my answers to this idiot atheist I met the other day. Oh, and he's not an idiot because he's an atheist, he just happens to be an idiot and an atheist at the same time. Atheists are not all idiots, and religious people are not all good. Ciao per ora, e buonna notte.

God Grant Me Strength

One of the reasons I study history is to try and correct all the ridiculous misconceptions people have about various things, and it can be a wholly frustrating task. Not only do I have to deal with outright ignorance ("The Earl of Sandwich? That's not a person, you're a liar"), and terrible mistakes made by the education system ("Christopher Columbus set out to prove the world was round because everyone else thought it was flat"), but now I also have to contend with immoral and unscrupulous authors who intentionally manipulate the historical evidence for the purposes of propaganda (yes Hitchens and Dawkins, I'm talking about you two).

Sometimes I get the urge to go crazy on people...I just CANNOT tolerate willful stupidity, nor should I, or any other sane person, be expected to. Here is a conversation I had with a man at work the other day. I found him in the Religion section, and he started talking about how much he loved "The God Delusion", and "God is not Great", two of the most a-historical books ever published (after "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" of course).

Guy: Those books were great, they really opened my mind to new things. Now I don't just

accept what people tell me.

Me: Yeah, I hear they're good. My only problem with them is that neither of the authors are

good historians (Dawkins is a scientist and Hitchens is a philosopher I believe), and they get

a bunch of their facts wrong.

Guy: Like what?

Me: Well, for example, the Inquisition. Opponents of religion tend to claim that the Inquisition

killed all sorts of people, but that just wasn't the case.

Guy: Well, it was.

Me: No, it wasn't. The Holy Office of the Inquisition has executed less that 150 people since its

inception in the 1200s. Conversely, independent Protestant "Inquisitors" in Northern

Europe killed close to 80,000 people (though that estimate is considered low by most

experts), and the Spanish Inquisition was a state run organization, not a church run one.

Guy: See, this is what you religious people do, you delude yourselves about things.

Me: No, I did the research. I am trained to do proper research, and that's what I did.

Guy: No, you're deluded.

Me: Wait...didn't you tell me you don't just believe things people tell you any more?

Um...maybe you shouldn't just believe what Dawkins and Hitchens say about subjects they

have no experience in.

Guy: Sorry man, but you're just wrong. You religious people are just wrong.

Ok, so tell me why the state won't allow violence when one has been unbearably provoked? Please people, PLEASE, don't talk knowingly about something you don't know, and then deny actual facts discovered through real research. These atheists are getting worse than the Creationists...So please, the next time you meet a poor historian who is just trying to help society by giving it a clear picture of it's past, don't argue with him (it may be politically correct for me to add "or her", but I'm actually referring only to myself here), listen, because maybe you just might learn something. Please attack stupidity wherever you find it. Ciao.

Bread Into Flesh?

Ok, here is another of those Facebook notes I wrote a little while ago...one that made some people mad at me:

So a few months ago I managed to get into a discussion on religion with a Jew and a Protestant, both of whom asked me to explain the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation. If you don't know, that's the belief that when the priest blesses the bread and wine at mass they cease to be bread and wine, and physically become flesh and blood, which we then eat. It sounds a little far-fetched, and neither of them had anything nice to say about it, or the Church that accepts it. Now, here I might add that both of them were far more religious than I am. That gave me the idea to try and convince them that they actually believe Transubstantiation is possible. Sounds like fun eh? So here's how it went...

I told them that the entire doctrine of Transubstantiation relies on two main articles of belief, and that no one who opposed either of them could conceive of its validity. These two ideas are as follows:1- You must believe that God not only exists, but takes an active role in the day-to-day workings of the world.2 - You must believe that God is omnipotent, and is not bound by the strictures man has imposed on the natural world under the guise of "science."I thought that sounded clear enough, and being religious type people, they pretty much agreed with those ideas.

Ok, step two; here's where we resort to logic. First, IF one believes that God takes an active role in the world, then one must also believe that His presence at mass and participation in it is at least possible. Second, IF one believes that God is omnipotent then one must also believe that He is capable of turning bread and wine into a sort of flesh and blood that merely LOOKS, and TASTES like bread and wine to us mortals. Failure to believe He could do that would thus be a denial of His omnipotence. Therefore, IF one agrees with the above articles of faith, then it becomes impossible to deny at least the possibility that Transubstantiation is a reasonable idea.

So, I thought my logic was pretty sound (although I admit to frequently faulty logic characterized by leaps from A-D, rather than the usual A-B-C-D stuff that ultimately makes more sense)...and I told them that I had just proved that they both believed in Transubstantiation. Let me tell you, I have never in my life seen two people so offended, flustered, confused, and angry. One of them kept repeating "but it doesn't change, it just doesn't" with no explanation forthcoming. The other called me an idiot and proceeded to leave both the discussion and the room...

Which leads me to a few questions:

1 - Was my logic messed up?

2 - Is it totally unreasonable to ask that a person responds in a manner that suits the discussion? I mean, one minute we were actually discussing theology within the framework of organized religion and its finer points, and the next I'm being called a jackass by two people who couldn't back up their arguments with any ideas contained within such a framework. If we were discussing Italian soccer, and I described the particular Italian philosophy regarding the distribution of red and yellow cards, responding in terms of NHL hockey makes no sense.

3 - Have we as a society lost the ability to discuss contentious issues in reasonable terms without resorting to name-calling and constant repetition of an "I'm right and you're wrong" nature?

4 - Am I just a dick?

So, that's my little rant for the day. I know, religion is one of those super-touchy issues, but I don't think it should be. Only in discussing society's differences can we ever come to understand and accept them...and only by PROPERLY discussing them can any sense be made...Oh, and by the way, I'm not a religious fanatic, I was only trying to convince them of Transubstantiation for the sake of argument. I like to argue.

Thanks for listening to me again, and please tell me what you think, open discussion is my favourite forum. Ciao.