Stephen Roney's Blog, page 242

The CBC's Falun Gong Show

Someone wise once said we should never attribute to malice what can be explained by ordinary human incompetence.

Clinging desperately to that principle, I am stunned by the journalistic incompetence of this report by the CBC.

To begin with, this is not news. Some average Canadian is upset by a piece of unsolicited mail? Dog bites man. First rule of journalism broken.

Second, any news story is supposed to include both sides of a controversy. Second rule of journalism broken. The piece should quote Epoch Times in response to the woman’s charges. It should also quote an expert who thinks the virus originated in the Wuhan lab. There are many. I believe this has become the majority opinion among the experts.

Certainly, the assertion by the average Canadian featured that “we know scientifically that’s just not true” needed to be challenged. It was objectively false.

The CBC narrator later says Epoch Times claims the virus was developed as a bioweapon. This is objectively false as well. The Epoch Times did not say this; it only referred to it as a possibility. Fake news.

The anonymous average Canadian interviewee is quoted calling the Epoch Times “racist,” without this being challenged.

The Epoch Times is here being highly critical of the Chinese Communist Party. The Epoch Times is owned and run by a group of Chinese Americans. Same race.

The Epoch Times is affiliated in some way with Falun Gong. The CBC refers to them as “a dissident group that has locked horns with the Chinese Communist Party.” It might be debatable to what extent and in what way the Falun Gong has been persecuted in China—organ harvesting or no organ harvesting—there is no question that they are being persecuted. And the is no question the dispute began with the CCP attacking Falun Gong, not vice versa, in violation of the principle of freedom of religion which we consider a human right. Speaking of them as having “locked horns” with the CCP, is like referring to the German Jews having “locked horns” with Hitler. This is not a conflict in which a moral person can be neutral. Much less support, as the CBC does here, the Chinese Communists.

Can you imagine them having supported the Soviet government against Sakharov or Solzhenitsyn, declaring the latter racists? The difference in treatment of Russian Communist governments and Chinese Communist governments indeed suggests racism—on the part of the CBC.

It interviews an unidentified woman saying that, because the Epoch Times “always has the same position on a particular issue,” “that’s not journalism. Is it propaganda?” Cleverly worded, perhaps, so the CBC cannot be sued. But by this standard, The Economist magazine is also propaganda, not journalism. It has a consistent position on free markets. Essentially all magazines or newspapers have consistent editorial positions: it is the usual reason for starting a journal, and the usual reason for subscribing to one. In a word, it is journalism.

This is at the same time an example of the simplest and most easily recognized of all logical fallacies: an ad hominem argument. Not the sort of thing a professional journalistic outlet should ever be guilty of; the sort of thing a professional journalistic outlet should be educating the public out of. The reporting of the Epoch Times, like any reporting, must be evaluated on its merits.

The narrator’s arch concluding comment: ““If people don’t like it, they can always drop it in the recycling bin.”

The tragedy is, Canadians cannot do the same with the CBC. We are forced to pay for it, even if we are not forced to watch it.

Someone should be fired over this.


'Od's Blog: Catholic and Clear Grit comments on the passing parade.

World War Three?

Things are getting worse.

People are speaking in apocalyptic terms. Is public transit dead? Are cities dead? Are schools and universities obsolete? Is the food going to run out?

Will there be war with China?

No. At least, not a big war.

This crisis leaves the Chinese leadership in a perilous spot. So long as China’s rise looked inevitable, those in charge had no real incentive to rock any atolls, and the Chinese public was prepared to stay on for the ride.

Now China will experience serious economic fallout, as the rest of the world “decouples.”

So the incentives change. If China’s economy and prestige is in decline, why not strike now, while still strong?

Germany charged into the First World War because they calculated that they were about to lose their ascendancy to Russia. They charged into the second because they thought they were unsustainable without Russia’s resources. Japan charged into the Second because they thought they were going to run out of resources.

The Chinese government might decide to grab while the grabbing was good. At the same time, perhaps forestalling internal revolt by uniting behind a common enemy.

The problem is, there is no plausible target that would be worth the risk.

China is actually quite self-sufficient in terms of natural resources, and, obviously, manpower. There seems to be no nearby grab that would significantly improve their strategic situation.

Starting a foreign war is also a poor strategy for avoiding internal dissention. Foreign wars, if they last more than a moment, are more likely to have the opposite effect. War provoked the Russian Revolution, the Paris Commune, indirectly both the French and the American revolutions. War hardly prevented the Chinese Communists from overthrowing the Guomintang.

Unless they see an easy, bloodless score, I expect no serious trouble from the Chinese government.

Would the US start a war with China? Not intentionally. The US too is self-sufficient. Nothing would be worth a land war in Asia. And war is a hard sell with the American public at the best of times.

'Od's Blog: Catholic and Clear Grit comments on the passing parade.

A Journal of the Plague Year

The meat shortage is real.

Went for my weekly food excursion today. The store was uncrowded, with no lineup. This was for seniors hour.

About half of the meat aisle was filled with fresh pasta instead of meat. 
I bought some fresh pasta.

Times like this, I’m glad I’m a vegetarian.

Scads of toilet paper. No yeast. Saw something about this on YouTube. Since everyone is stuck at home, they’re getting into baking. Demand is 600% higher than normal.

Pity. Since I’m stuck home, I was thinking of getting into baking.

People are getting better at social distancing. In the US, people seem to be getting restive. Here, they were slow to take it seriously, but are adjusting to things. This is the difference between a liberal (US) and a conservative (Canada) culture.

I am happy to see Trump still doing press conferences; at least today. Scott Adams had an insight here. Press conferences are obsolete. With the pandemic, they are also unnecessarily risky. “Press conferences” ought to go online, and allow questions from the general public. As they exist, they unfairly favour established over new or upstart media and media companies, and have allowed a self-interested elite to control what people hear and see.

After Trump’s mention of UV light as a possible treatment for coronavirus, YouTube, Vimeo, and Twitter all suddenly took down a video demonstrating the possibilities of UV light as a possible treatment for coronavirus. This illustrates the clear and present danger the current system represents. It is subverting American democracy, and is liable to get a lot of people killed.

In other news, Kim Jong Un is still dead.

'Od's Blog: Catholic and Clear Grit comments on the passing parade.

Uneasy Lies the Head

Philippine President Roderigo Duterte.
I think it is time to show some empathy for our leaders. They are human, after all.

Just imagine having to make the kind of decisions they must make in this pandemic. Choose lockdown, and you may wreck your economy, and lose your country’s position in the world. People may starve. You may cause a revolution. Choose to keep things open, and you may kill thousands, millions, of people. Nobody will be happy either way. And there is never enough information; there are no precedents.

Weeks ago, President Duterte of the Philippines, the notoriously tough guy, was already looking gaunt and tired. He was pleading with his own people for patience and understanding. A lockdown in the Philippines means people will quickly have no food. He has no money to give them, or to get masks, gowns, pills, or respirators. Even if a cure or a vaccine is found, he will have to wait in line until the rich countries have all the doses they need. There are no good options.

I think Donald Trump is cracking under the pressure. He has seemed superhuman in the past, able to stand his ground against all comers. But the stress has been showing recently. Hydrochloraquine has not been panning out; he had no doubt been hoping it would. Now he too has no good options. He was getting very aggressive towards the media at his daily pressers. They richly deserved it, but you got the feeling he was acting out some of his own stress. A few days ago, he lost concentration and said something offhand about injecting disinfectants. He was tired; who wouldn’t be tired? Now the press is trying to crucify him for it. All as he needs to make these terrifying decisions. And now they are blaming him for seeming to lack empathy. He seems to have lost his composure: he cut that press conference short, and now is saying he will hold them no longer. He excused his remark on disinfectants by claiming he was just being sarcastic towards the media. Not plausible; the villainy of the media has simply become an idee fixe for him.

I sense he has finally been pushed beyond the limits of human endurance. He needs sympathy, an outpouring of support, a rest, and the rest of us need to pray for him. If only for our own sake. The American media, of course, deserve condemnation. I hope he can hold himself together.

I find it hard to pity Justin Trudeau; he seems so insincere. And it is easier for him; as Canadian PM, all he needs to do is the usual: look at what the US is doing, and make the same announcement a few days later. But long before this started, he seemed to me a frightened little boy. “Frightened” may no longer be a strong enough word. I think he has detached himself, and is only reading things put in front of him.

Doug Ford, in his first press conference after the lockdown, seemed close to tears. Unlike Trump, he shows visible empathy. Like Trump, he also shows frustration: lashing out a few days ago at anti-lockdown protesters as “yahoos.” You can see he feels helpless.

But the leader I pity most is Kim Jong Un.

I have no insight into what is going on in North Korea. Multiple press reports say he is dead, or near death. But we know we cannot trust the media. The South Korean Government says they believe he is alive and well. But we know we cannot trust government intelligence.

My intuition is that Kim is still alive, but in grave condition, and not expected to recover. “Brain dead,” one of the rumours, may be right. My guess is that COVID-19 is probably there, as it is in every other country in the world, and the system has not been able to manage it. In early April, his guard detail were photographed wearing masks. If Kim caught it, he is fat, a smoker, with a heart condition.

The true situation has not been publicly announced, and the NK authorities are taking pains to go about their business as usual, because nobody else is yet in command; they need to settle that first. They do not want to send any signals that might give their people an idea that an uprising might succeed.

At this moment, then, Kim may be facing death. He is, in the end, a human being. He has committed unspeakable crimes, for a self-indulgent life. Now he must meet the reckoning. And it must be terrible.

The horror he is going through, and will go through, seems to me too awful to contemplate. The fact that he deserves it does not change that.

Queen Elizabeth I, it is said, died in terror, saying she would give her entire kingdom for just one more moment of life. And Elizabeth, although a far worse monarch than history remembers, was nevertheless not in Kim’ league.

He, more than anyone, is to be pitied.



'Od's Blog: Catholic and Clear Grit comments on the passing parade.

The Madness of Crowds

It has often been observed by interested parties other than myself that the modern right sees and appeals to people as individuals, while the modern left sees people as groups.

Add to this Nietzsche’s observation: “Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule.”

And we have a syllogism. Conclusion: the modern left is mad. Its natural constituency is the insane. 
Suddenly, we have an explanation for Joe Biden's candidacy. They are now actually running a man transparently not in his right mind. This is who they feel comfortable with.
I suppose this sounds like a joke. I suppose a question is knocking at the monastery door, begging bowl in hand. Why are people in groups mad?

Little selfhoods are always in danger of getting out of control. They are like cats; like wilful children. Everyone has an innate desire to be better than others. For the average person, this is necessarily improbable. For everyone, it requires some serious effort. There is a natural temptation, therefore, to delusion—to believe you are better than others on any spurious grounds. Eat an apple, say, and become as gods.
For individuals, this does not work well. Others will be inclined to scorn and scoff; leading to the contrary impression that you are actually worse than others. Epic fail.

But for groups—they can all support one another in the shared delusion, as Adam could support Eve; and it begins to work. They can all reassure one another that they are as a group better than others outside the group. It becomes possible, in principle, to live most of one’s life without hearing anyone challenge your chosen delusion.

Sustaining the insanity becomes trickier, of course, as the delusions grow more extreme; and as communication improves, and you come in regular contact with more others. Jews, foreigners, Republicans, and the like.

At this point, there will be a natural urge to devalue all those outside the group. The idea of their inferiority must be emphasized. They will gradually be dehumanized, even demonized. For it is essential that they must not be listened to. They are all "racists," say, or "Fascists," or vermin of some other kind.

If they cannot be ignored, they must be silenced. If they cannot be silenced, they must be destroyed.

No doubt not all groups are mad. Some groups, if they work as intended, work to reduce ego: one thinks of religions and religious orders. 
But all groups should be approached with caution. And a butterfly net.


'Od's Blog: Catholic and Clear Grit comments on the passing parade.

Nationalism and Globalism

Map showing democracies in shades of blue; Economist Intelligence Unit.
I would not have thought that, in suggesting that endorsing “family values” is no different from endorsing nationalism, that I would get pushback on the idea that there were problems with nationalism.

Yet, when I suggested this to my friend Darius, I did.

He writes, “Being a patriot is a good thing not bad; maintaining an awareness and respect for one's heritage and national accomplishments … is a defense against Godless globalism.”

I do not condemn nationalism in itself. I wrote that nation is “useful,” and a national government “desirable.” The danger is in seeing the nation or national government as sacred or holy, as we tend to with “family values.” That is, straight up, Fascism.

I would call myself a “Canadian nationalist.” I support a nationalist view of Canada because I see Canadian nationalism not as a defense against globalism, but against tribalism: against ethnic allegiances like those of Quebec, or aboriginal groups, or various special interest groups. Canadian or American or Australian or Singaporean nationalism is special in this way, because Canada or the USA or Singapore are not nations in the conventional sense. They are not based on blood ties, but on adherence to shared values. In this, they are more like a monastery than a family.

To be American is to commit to the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. To be Canadian is to endorse the principles stated in the preamble to the Canadian Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since I wholeheartedly endorse these principles, and think they should be extended to all mankind, I endorse Canadian or American nationalism. All men are created equal; all are endowed with inherent rights. Among these are freedom of speech, of assembly, of conscience, and so forth. But this sort of nationalism is, implicitly, globalism; since these principles apply to all men.

I am much less well-disposed to other nationalisms: most nations are ethnically based, and so nationalism there amounts to tribalism. It is fine to feel a special warmth for your homeland, because it is human nature to do so, it is pleasant and enriches life. It is fine to feel an appreciation for your (or another) culture, as a thing of beauty, just as one can appreciate a fine painting. But it makes no rational sense to me that I should take any pride in what some other person did, because we are both Canadians. This is in principle the same as collective guilt. Are we going to hold Jews guilty for the crucifixion, then?

And I reserve the right to appropriate from whatever culture I so choose. Culture is for man, not man for the culture. The latter idea, again, is Fascism.

In principle, I am in favour of globalism over nationalism, just as and for the same reason I am in favour of nationalism over tribalism. This is one important reason I am Catholic: the sense of unity and brother hood around the globe. This is a reason I even lament the loss of the British Empire―despite my Irish heritage. It united people around the globe in one common endeavour, and under comparatively liberal principles. This is why I am essentially pro-American: because American culture is globalist culture. Where do you think hamburgers come from? America? Where do you think ketchup comes from? Pizza? Hot dogs? Jazz?

I do oppose “Godless globalism.” That adjective identifies the enemy. I rather think we liberal democracies should walk away from the United Nations and form a League of Free Nations, perhaps built on NATO’s foundations. If any member veered from the path of democratic elections and a fundamental list of human rights, their membership would be revoked. The present situation is pernicious: the worst offenders always get the first seats on the UN panel meant to deal with any given issue of human rights.

Any such league must recognize the supremacy of God. As the Canadian constitution does explicitly, and the Declaration of Independence does implicitly. You cannot have human rights and human equality without belief in God. As Locke himself pointed out, the two cannot be separated.

Moreover, any such league must be founded on the principle of subsidiarity, or federalism. This is where the EU went awry. Powers must always reside with the lowest level of organization capable of dealing with them. This is required by the very concept of human rights, which means that the individual has, as much as possible, the right to decide for himself.


'Od's Blog: Catholic and Clear Grit comments on the passing parade.

A Journal of the Plague Year

This lockdown and this virus scare has gone on too long. People are getting cranky. There was supposed to be a happy ending by now.

So much for the newfound sense of unity, the sense that we are all in this together, humanity against a common enemy. Now everyone is looking for scapegoats.

I don’t see much wrong with scapegoating the government of China. I don’t see much wrong with scapegoating the WHO. Only that it is a distraction from the task at hand.

But I think it’s wrong to scapegoat the experts, or the various governments, or Donald Trump, for calling for the shutdown.

Yes, the virus seems less deadly than we thought. But they did not know that when they shut things down. Caution seems wise in the face of the unknown; the downside was too terrible.

People point to Sweden, which has not locked down, and seems to be doing well. Reasonably well, true, but who knew it would?

And after all, compare Sweden’s death toll to date with those of similar, neighbouring countries. Sweden has a death rate of 213 per million. Denmark has 70 per million. Norway has 37 per million. Finland has 32 per million. Not locking down seems to have cost Sweden five times as many deaths to date. The US as of today lists 52,217 total deaths. No lockdown makes that 260,000. That’s double the number of Americans who died in World War 1, and counting. Was the US lockdown worth saving 200,000 lives? Was the Canadian lockdown worth saving about 20,000?

But the real risk was of something worse. The experience of Italy and Spain was of health care systems being overwhelmed, and people dying without care. The essential thing, the reason for the lockdown, was to prevent that. Without care, for coronavirus or for other illnesses generally, how high might that death toll have gone?

Now, granted, it is time to start opening things back up. It is a grievous shame that we do not yet have an effective treatment, but we cannot afford to stay closed down much longer. That is just what American governments, and some governments elsewhere, are about to do.

Some are blaming the medical experts, for giving us false information about the effectiveness of masks, for getting their predictions of deaths and respirator use wrong. I have argued elsewhere that they have in fact been perfectly consistent on face masks. On deaths and respirator use, they could not perform magic; people think science is magical. They were mostly guessing, like all of us, based on many unknowns.

On the left, there is a manic urge to scapegoat Trump. Early on in the spread of the virus, he was blamed for taking the threat too seriously; now he is blamed for not taking it seriously enough from the start. In a couple of weeks, as the virus proves less deadly, or effective treatments are found, he will no doubt be blamed again for taking it too seriously.

He seems to have cleverly played on this: first announcing he as president had total power to end the lockdown, evoking hysterical protests. That was an obvious ploy, something provocative he had no reason to say. But the media and the left immediately fell for it. They began objecting loudly that Trump was trying to grab power away from the states. Then Trump announced that individual governors would decide. This is surely what he wanted to do all along: national plans like this do not materialize in a day or two. It seems the most sensible approach, given the basic premise of reopening piecemeal. And best of all, Trump avoids all electoral blame for either opening up too early, killing people, or staying shut too late, wrecking the local economy. Why take that heat if you can farm it out to the governors?

Had he started with this position, there would have been howls of protest, that he was abdicating responsibility. Now nobody can object.

Trump may not be that smart, but he is at least twice as smart as his critics.

The current furor is that Trump casually asked at a press conference about using disinfectants internally. He perhaps misspoke—by definition, “disinfectant” means something not used internally. But what sane person would care?

Testing by the US Department of Homeland Security now shows the virus is sensitive to heat, humidity, and sunlight. This explains why Australia and New Zealand have done so well; why Southeast Asia, right next to China and underdeveloped, has done so much better than Europe. This also means we should get a significant abatement of the epidemic within the next few months, here in the heavily populated Northern Hemisphere. We can perhaps augment this by putting UV lighting in public places.

We have until October or so to build up a testing and quarantine regimen, perhaps more effective treatments, perhaps even a vaccine. Our testing, at least, is getting much better very fast, and this alone could make all the difference.
'Od's Blog: Catholic and Clear Grit comments on the passing parade.

Family Values and Fascism

First family. Wait till you meet the kids.
A friend avers that the sanctity of the family is next only to the sanctity of God himself. 
A common view, these days, among those on the right, and among Christians.

I urgently need to disagree.

Logically, family here is equivalent to nation: either is a useful social unit, based on shared genetics and shared experiences. The difference is only in scale.

Now what does it sound like if you speak of the “sanctity of the nation”? If you guessed Fascism, you guessed right. This was the core idea of Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. It is not just incompatible with Christianity; it is antithetical to it.

So too with “the sanctity of the family.” It automatically denies the brotherhood of man, and goes ugly places. Crimes as awful as those of Nazi Germany, if on a smaller scale.

No question that family is desirable and useful, just as is a national government. Both give us the warm fuzzies. Exactly for this reason, there is a danger of idolatry, of overvaluing it. Money is useful too; so is sex. But there is immediately a problem if you think of money or sex as sacred.

For my marriage ceremony, we were free to choose our own Bible reading. Not coincidentally, it is extremely hard to find a good Bible reading, unambiguously praising marriage.

How about St. Paul?

“But I say to the unmarried and to widows, it is good for them if they remain even as I am. But if they don't have self-control, let them marry. For it's better to marry than to burn.”

There’s damning with faint praise, surely.

'Od's Blog: Catholic and Clear Grit comments on the passing parade.

Is Environmentalism Extinct?

Popularity per capita of maps featuring the colour red. Not to scale.
Folks are saying the world is going to change. Things will never go back to normal after the coronavirus. Globalism is dead. 
I think maybe environmentalism too.

To be fair, my friend Xerxes joins Pope Francis in declaring the opposite: that the pandemic somehow reinforces the environmentalist argument. It is nature taking revenge.

But that is not how it looks to me.

Reports say the canals of Venice now run clear; you can see the fish. They say the skies are clear above Beijing. You can see from satellites.

Xerxes says this shows how much our actions affect the Earth. I think the opposite. It seems to me this reveals our “environmental footprint” is lighter than we imagined. Turn things off for a few weeks, and nature seems to forget we were ever there.

I think of Shelley’s "Ozymandias."

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
“My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

Was environmentalism always an expression of hubris? Supposing we humans were in control of nature, that we could calibrate the global temperature a hundred years from now right down to a degree or two, like adjusting the thermostat in our home?

Were we arrogant in supposing nature was a maiden so fragile that she needed us to do so? Weren’t we really seeing ourselves as godlike?

The coronavirus reminds us we are arguably not the dominant species on earth. We are definitely not the top of the food chain. Microbes feast on us.

Nature also looks less lovable and benevolent than it did a year ago, doesn’t it?

The coronavirus reminds us that our best-laid plans as men gang aft agley; the epidemic caught us off-guard. Ten years ago, the experts were warning of “peak oil.” Suddenly the price of oil is less than zero. During the crisis, expert advice, expert predictions, expert models for the virus death rate, the rate of hospitalization, the rate of respirator use, have been consistently wrong.

All the computer models and charts and graphs that showed what the global temperature is going to be in 2090, much further in the future and with many more possible variables, are looking quaint and naïve now. Relics of a bygone day when things seemed much simpler. Rather like the 1950s’ confidence that science had a solution for everything.

Environmentalism was always a cheap substitute for religion. It was an amoral creed with man at the centre. A wise and merciful God might even have sent the virus to destroy it, as he did the human sacrifices of Canaan, or Ninevah, or Tyre.

'Od's Blog: Catholic and Clear Grit comments on the passing parade.

Doubting Thomas and Blind Faith

There is a disturbing element to last Sunday’s reading. I got distracted yesterday into writing once again about transubstantiation. I meant to write once again about salvation by faith alone.

Thomas, called Didymus, one of the Twelve,
was not with them when Jesus came.
So the other disciples said to him, “We have seen the Lord.”
But he said to them,
“Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands
and put my finger into the nailmarks
and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

Now a week later his disciples were again inside
and Thomas was with them.
Jesus came, although the doors were locked,
and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.”
Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands,
and bring your hand and put it into my side,
and do not be unbelieving, but believe.”
Thomas answered and said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
Jesus said to him, “Have you come to believe because you have seen me?
Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.”

It seems “Doubting” Thomas is criticized for not believing without evidence. This is a common reading of the passage. He should have believed it all without seeing the evidence for himself.

But this makes no sense. Why should anyone believe anything without evidence? Why should this be considered admirable, instead of merely credulous? If we are to believe without evidence, how do we choose what to believe, and what not to believe? What if we are told the moon is made of emerald Camembert?

I think the passage must be read differently. Those who believe without having seen are being congratulated for their good luck, not commended. “Blessed” can obviously have this meaning. When Jesus says, in the Beatitudes, “blessed are those who mourn,” surely he is not saying we have a moral duty to mourn without cause. “Lucky for you if you can believe without evidence.”

True faith is not blind, and is not an act of arbitrarily believing this or that in order to be saved. That is not faith in God; that is usurping the powers of God. It requires faith to pursue the logic and evidence relentlessly, fearlessly, humbly, wherever it leads. To assert a truth because you want it to be true, because you think it will gain you something to believe it, is the opposite of faith.

Accordingly, as Descartes for one demonstrated, doubt is the foundation of all faith. Thomas is modelling the proper attitude.

Jacob wrestling with God at the Jabbok River demonstrates it too. 

Jacob was left alone, and wrestled with a man there until the breaking of the day. When he saw that he didn’t prevail against him, the man touched the hollow of his thigh, and the hollow of Jacob’s thigh was strained as he wrestled. The man said, “Let me go, for the day breaks.”

Jacob said, “I won’t let you go unless you bless me.”

He said to him, “What is your name?”

He said, “Jacob.”

He said, “Your name will no longer be called Jacob, but Israel; for you have fought with God and with men, and have prevailed.”

For this, he won the name that he has passed down to all his descendants, “Israel.” The name means “Wrestles with God.”

Any truly religious person must know such nights. It is the man who is forever engaging with God who has true faith.


'Od's Blog: Catholic and Clear Grit comments on the passing parade.