Showing posts with label truth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label truth. Show all posts

Thursday, August 1, 2013

The Good Ol' Days

TV, television, black and white, family, children, parents, old school


by Andrew Thetford

Doesn’t it suck to live in this modern society, so filled with corruption and sex, violence and greed, enslaved to technology? According to the generations who have gone before us, it should.
 

A couple of months ago I was sitting in an airport terminal when an older gentleman sat down beside me. On the monitor overhead, CNN was keeping us linked to the world outside Concourse B. Then up came a story about three women in the Cleveland area who had been held as captives in a suburban basement for years. 
 

We watched for a moment, and the man gave a huff of bewilderment. “This world has gone mad,” he said. And then he turned to me. “I’m sorry for you, son. Things just aren’t like the good ol’ days.”
 

I began to do as my people-pleasing self does; I agreed with him. Nodding my head, I gave assent to his proposition that things are going to hell in a hand basket. As he continued, he ranted about the homosexual agenda, how kids have no need for social skills anymore, and how “yes, ma’am” and “yes, sir” are going the way of the dodo.
 

Later, as I sat on the plane, I began to ponder these “good ol’ days.” I realized that my whole life, I’ve heard that the past was so much better, that we’re on a downhill slide - that the world of yesteryear would have offered me a better life. But really, these “good ol’ days,” are they just a myth?
 

field, wheat, sunset, sky, waves of grain

The “good ol’ days” don’t refer to some golden age where the world was objectively better.  They refer to a subjective evaluation of history that has been “cleaned up” by memory. They are past times remembered with nostalgia. And if that is true, then the “good ol’ days” weren’t really all that “good.” They are nostalgic memories that remind someone of a time when they felt more at ease in the world around them.
 

First, it’s a natural defense mechanism to remember things that are good, and try to repress or forget those things that are painful, or frightening, or cause trauma. This helps us cope, but it gives us a rose-tinted view of the past. 
 

Second, as adolescents become adults, they establish a certain set of social norms, generally commensurate to the norms of the culture at that time. So, as these views of “how the world works” are being formed, let’s say from age 15-25, more or less, this is the way they expect the world to remain. But time advances, and society changes. As those changes move well outside of what someone came to understand as normative, it’s little wonder that the “good ol’ days” seem better than the here and now.
 

Often we may look round and feel that times are getting worse and worse, that things are spinning out of control and nothing can stay this dark momentum. Sometimes we give up on a brighter future, a better tomorrow. We may have known couples who had the desire to create a family and have children, but decide it wouldn’t be right to bring children into a “corrupt world,” a world with such a dangerous future. But is this world so much darker, so much worse than the world of the past?
 

hollywood, sign, landmark, hillsideLets break this down. Here are some of the things people miss about the “good ol’ days” and my response, calling out the bullshit underlying each:
 

Movies didn’t have sex, and Hollywood wasn’t the purveyor of poor morals 

Movies didn’t show as much nudity in old Hollywood, but sex was there. It always pushed the boundaries of censorship; it only appears different to us because those social boundaries have changed. But there’s something even worse: sex was institutionalized, part of the system; most actresses had to sleep their way to the top. Marilyn Monroe only made it into the movies by sleeping with directors until her resume was thick enough (at least, according to Lois Banner’s The Passion and the Paradox). Hollywood has always been sex driven; it’s just that the social norms that govern “sexy” have shifted over time.
 

Homosexuality wasn’t celebrated and marriage was between a man and a woman  

The desire for love, no matter one’s sexual orientation, isn’t a new thing. And it isn’t a bad thing, either. But in the past, gays and lesbians had to hide a part of themselves from the world. It’s hell living a life in secret, denying one’s true self. But now, these men and women are freer to openly be themselves, and be loved for who they are. This change is for good, not ill. 
 

Not only that, but in the past, the “homosexual lifestyle” was misrepresented and misunderstood, in large part because gays and lesbians were forced to keep their orientation hidden. They were painted as sex-crazed, indecent people, each taking multiple lovers and opposed to monogamy. As the walls that blinded heterosexuals to the “lifestyle” of homosexuals have come down, we have seen the deep desire for monogamy and life-long commitment. 
 

American politicians were decent and had strong moral values 

This one is ridiculous and laughable. From Andrew Jackson’s genocide of Native Americans on the Trail of Tears, to Nixon’s Watergate, our government has hosted corruption most all of its existence. Political scandal is nothing new, and the scheming and self-preservation of our politicians goes back to our very founding.
 

millennials, phones, young people, smart phones, wall, standing, cool kidsTechnology had not taken over people’s lives 

Progress is not a bad thing. Enlightenment is not a bad thing. I’ll grant you, some kids are stuck in their phones too much, but this is not the fault of technology. Technology helps us connect to others, to remain in contact with people that would formerly have disappeared from our lives. And as the world becomes a closer, global community, we learn from one another; we become a more enlightened people. Connection to mankind is a positive step forward.
 

Divorces were much more infrequent 

No, divorce is not a good thing. It punishes children and spouses and does damage to the social fabric. Having said that, I continue – before divorce laws were liberalized, abused spouses struggled to escape inhumane relationships. The stigma surrounding divorce kept people trapped in situations that were immoral and unjust. Better to divorce than to stick around with a dangerous, or utterly incompatible person.
 

There are more, but these do nicely to exemplify the arguments made by past generations as to why we live in the suckiest of times.
 

Now lets get real. For those who follow Christ and his teachings here’s what he says:
 

Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst.” – Luke 17:20-21
 

There is now no time in which it is better to live than any other. Because the Kingdom is here; it is now. It is here in our midst; we just have to step into it.
 

Charles Dickens wrote of “the best of times and…the worst of times.” And so it is today. Yes, there are so many things that are wrong with our present time. But even so, there are so many things that are wonderful and good in these days. There will always be corruption, injustice, hunger, poverty, greed… and all the other dark things in this world. But we are not called to lose heart; we are called to do good, and to see good – to set our minds to things which are good, and noble, and just. Set your eyes on the good that surrounds us.
 

cool, field, dark, hope, lightWe are called to focus on the now, and the tangible Kingdom that is amongst us.
 

Let us begin to take “our day” by the horns and make it good. No longer shall we listen to the oppressive words that tell us we are doomed from birth. We have the ability to shift social norms, to deconstruct poverty, to fight injustice, and do the good that is within our grasp.
 

Rather than fear the thought of bringing children into the world, let it excite us, because if we impart this gift of hope to our children, we can parent a positive, loving, and accepting generation.
 

These are our days, and when some call them doomed we will just smile and brush it off.
 

And when our children and our grandchildren come, we will tell them how great their days shall be. And we will not tell them how they should wish only to have lived back in the “good ol’ days.”

Andrew is a native in Nashville, TN. He is also the editor's cousin. Finally, he would like to remind everyone to Wang Chung tonight. You can follow him on Twitter @andrewthetford.

You can follow On Pop Theology on Twitter @OnPopTheology or like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/OnPopTheology. 

You might also like:

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

I'm Probably Wrong

sign, everything you know is wrong

by Ben Howard

"I'm probably wrong."

"Wrong about what?" I ask myself.

"Oh! Everything...probably. At least most things. To be more precise I am probably wrong about 90% of things. Except cake. I'm not wrong about cake. Unless, of course, I am. In which case I'm wrong about 91% of things."

"I don't think you're wrong about cake," my interior monologue counters.

"But what if I am? I mean, I don't think I am, but that's kind of the point isn't it? Nobody knows that they're wrong until they realize that they're wrong. You can only be wrong after the fact. Well, actually you were wrong all along, but you thought you were right and that was the only thing you knew. You only perceived yourself to be right. Maybe my perception about cake is entirely wrong."

"I don't think this is actually about cake. Unless it's about the band Cake in which case I think you take late-90's alt-rock far too seriously."

"You're right, it's not about cake. It might be about Cake, or at least the pyrrhic quest of the protagonist in 'The Distance'. I just wonder about the end goal of all the critiques and counter-critiques. It feels like everyone, myself included, is striving for some version of better/best, but such a pursuit necessitates a belief in a Platonic ideal for religion, for life, for reality in general. What if it's not actually possible to 'be right'? What if it's only possible to 'feel right'?"

RV, Cake, The Distance"Are you saying there is no truth? No right answers? I don't know if I agree with that, it's a pretty bleak way to view the world. Also, are you stealing this artistic convention from Chuck Klosterman?"

"I'm not saying that there isn't a truth that underlies the universe. I believe in God and I believe God is the truth the underlies the universe, but I also believe that we can only ever see God through a glass, darkly. As a result, our perception of truth and reality will always be fuzzy and slightly askew. I guess it's more than a binary distinction between right and wrong, that false duality may be what's causing so much frustration. And yes, I am stealing this from Klosterman, but he probably stole it from someone else who stole it from someone else who ultimately stole it from Plato, so I feel like I'm in good company."

"I understand. It does serve as a useful vehicle to just openly say things you're trying to process."

"Exactly! I'm glad you understand."

"So what brought on this whole right/wrong existential crisis?"

"Christian leaders saying stupid things. To be more specific, my arrogant responses to Christian leaders saying stupid things. I realized that I was assuming that my faith, my interpretation was always right and I was judging everything against it. But that faith has changed so much over the last few years, and if I use history as a judge, it will continue to change and shift. My shifting, evolving faith isn't a very good benchmark to hold others to, that's not fair."

"So what should you judge them against?"

"That's exactly the problem I'm encountering. I can't judge them against my believe, because it's always moving. I can't accurately judge them by the Bible, because it's affected by my interpretation. I can't accurately judge them by historical Christianity because it's unfaithful to the contextual nature of faith. So I have to triangulate all of those and it's difficult.

justice, blind, scales, judge, woman, stone, carving"You could always, I don't know, try not judging them. That whole 'Judge not lest ye be judged' thing."

"I was going to get there eventually. I don't know, maybe some people need the message of Piper and Driscoll. I can't comprehend that, but I also can't comprehend people who like reggae, so maybe my understanding of the world isn't the end all and be all. Yeah, their message can be damaging when it's pushed on people who it doesn't help, but my faith could probably be damaging to someone who needs something stricter and more forceful."

"Could it be possible that the varying expressions of Christianity are all useful to some people in some situations?"

"Yeah, I think it could. Good talk self."

Peace,
Ben

Ben Howard is an accidental iconoclast and generally curious individual living in Nashville, Tennessee. He is also the editor-in-chief of On Pop Theology and an avid fan of waving at strangers for no reason. You can follow him on Twitter @BenHoward87. 
 
You can follow On Pop Theology on Twitter @OnPopTheology or like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/OnPopTheology.

You might also like:
 

Friday, May 3, 2013

On Economics and Truth

griftopia, Matt Taibbi, corruption, greed, power, book, financial collapse
He calls Goldman Sachs a "vampire squid"
by Ben Howard

Earlier this week I picked up the book Griftopia by Rolling Stone columnist Matt Taibbi. I'm fascinated by the merger of politics and high finance especially in light of the 2008 financial crisis and Taibbi does a great job of laying out a chain of events that lead to this economic collapse as well as pointing out those responsible.

It's the kind of book that's really fun to read if you like being angry and disillusioned for 200 pages, which in the case of this book, I didn't mind. But this isn't about whether or not Griftopia is a good book, this is about truth.

Taibbi's work is filled with all sorts of interesting and provocative explanations for the financial crisis in 2008, alongside explanations for rising oil prices and the real, non-political motivations for health care reform. However, I remain skeptical of many of his findings for two primary reasons.

First, he's connecting the dots in order to paint a predetermined picture. This is entirely reasonable since he is trying to defend his central thesis of Power + Greed = Corruption, but it also sparks a natural skepticism in my mind. 

Second, occasionally Taibbi says things that are factual, but not quite true.

For instance, in a section about healthcare reform Taibbi makes a passing reference to higher rates of infant mortality in the United States than in other developed nations. This is true, but it's also true that doctors in the United States attempt more invasive, high-risk procedures to save at-risk births. Additionally, children who pass away after living for a few days are counted towards the infant mortality rate in the United States while other countries only count children who don't live 24 hours.

His statement is factually true, but the reason it's true has nothing to do with poor health care. In fact, it's true for the opposite reason, the doctors are better at attempting to save babies in distress.

This is a commonly accepted piece of evidence in favor of health care reform, but it isn't quite true. And the fact that it's true(ish) makes me wonder about the bigger connections Taibbi makes throughout his book.

preacher, sermon, preaching, pastor, minister
Good try, sir
This situation reminds me of something very familiar. Something that's been a part of my life since the day I was born. It reminds me of sermons.

This is how I relate to sermons. It doesn't matter if the message in question is good or bad, if it's delivered well or poorly. It doesn't even matter if I agree with the point being made; a healthy dose of skepticism is always present. In fact, I'm skeptical for the same reasons I'm skeptical of Taibbi's conclusions (even though I want to agree with him).

Not only are sermons by their very function geared towards reinforcing faith that forms their basic foundation, they're also full of those little illustrations and bits of information that sound good, but aren't quite true.

It's the preacher who uses Greek, but the translation isn't quite accurate; or quotes someone famous, except that person didn't say that line; or tells a well-known story, except that it's apocryphal.

These aren't lies. This isn't about lying at all. It's about those times when the truth is fuzzy, or when things said as facts turn out to be wrong.

One of the most influential economic studies of recent years was written by two economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff. Their study argues that a country begins to experience a severe slowing in economic growth when it's debt to GDP ratio exceeds 90%, a number that the United States is slightly above. The study has been used by countries the world over, as well as by Congressional leaders in the U.S. and it's one of the studies behind the big push to get the national debt under control.

The only problem? It's wrong.

Two weeks ago, it was announced that a 28-year old graduate student named Thomas Herndon, while trying to recreate the study for a class project, had stumbled upon a simple error in the Excel spreadsheet of the two economists which rendered their findings incorrect.

Reinhart and Rogoff, Thomas Herndon, excel, spreadsheet, economics, math is hard
Thomas Herndon, champ.
Math is hard.

I'm fascinated by this idea of fuzzy truth, of truths hidden away by perfectly reasonable and believable fictions. So what happens when we find out that something we believed to be true is wrong? Not a lie, not a fabrication, no ill intent, just mistaken.

How do we define truth in the midst of skepticism? Should I believe Taibbi's conclusions are correct even if a few of his facts aren't? Should I believe the preacher's sermon even when he says something I know isn't accurate? What about the about the scientist or the economist with cold, hard facts?

How can we tell what's true and what's true...ish?

Peace,
Ben

Ben Howard is an accidental iconoclast and generally curious individual living in Nashville, Tennessee. He is also the editor-in-chief of On Pop Theology and an avid fan of waving at strangers for no reason. You can follow him on Twitter @BenHoward87. 

You can follow On Pop Theology on Twitter @OnPopTheology or like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/OnPopTheology.

You might also like: