This is your place to publicly comment on the topics and issues addressed in Speaking of Faith programs. React in a personal way, and put into words what this program meant to you.

Submit Your Reflection about "The Morality of Nature."

A Constant Set of Rules (April 11, 2005)
Rev. Craig Williams wrote in the reflections his ideas on suffering. I believe there is no "Stupid Suffering," we all are challenged with suffering throughout our lifetimes. For all suffering is the result of misperceptions. The attitude we have towards the challenges in our lives dictates whether and how much we choose to suffer. And having compassion for oneself and others is the best place to start.

Jackie Randolph
Washington, DC (WETA, 90.9 FM)

A Constant Set of Rules (April 11, 2005)
I found the program interesting (as I find most of your programs). The way I look at it is that GOD gave us a "constant set of rules" that we all exist with. GOD does not change the rules to prevent "nasty" things from happening to individuals. We make the choices that can facilitate nasty things, e.g., building tall buildings on unstable ground or that utilize the "rules", e.g., paper houses, to prevent nasty things from happening.

Unfortunately we do not have a complete grasp (understanding) of the "rules," e.g., HIV-AIDS, cancer, mental illness, etc., so that we could understand what actions are wise and what actions are foolish. If GOD were to change the "rules" for individuals, it would seem that more people would be hurt than if the "rules" remain constant.

Edward Feustel
Plainfield, NH (WVPR, 89.5 FM)

Cruel and Callous Comments (April 10, 2005)
I found some of Professor Goodenough's comments cruel and callous and your inability or unwillingness to challenge her on some of her pronouncements disappointing and deeply saddening.

You described her as "not a theist." May I respectfully suggest a more appropriate word? Perhaps "atheist" would have been appropriate. Euphemisms never serve us well as they only dilute the essence of what we say. I also thought it interesting Professor Goodenough, a non theist, is attending church for the sheer fascination with the liturgy. Is it perhaps akin to a vegetarian visiting butcher shops for the sheer grandeur of the sliced muscle, the sawed bones, the flesh on the display for all to see? Having it both way is always intellectually disingenuous and sometimes simply dishonest.

Professor Goodenough's suggestion that people who died in the South Asia tsunami were just "not indigenous" enough to save their lives was cruel and callous. Your silence, saddening and disappointing. My adoptive daughter (an Indonesian by birth) who was nine years old perished in that disaster. Had she only been more indigenous she would have not have drowned under a wall of seawater and mud. I am left to wonder: Had Professor Goodenough been on the beach in Indonesia on that fateful day, would she be indigenous enough to sense the impending horror and run for the hills? This particular statement (about indigenous people being spared) was also not factual. Tens of thousands of indigenous people perished in that disaster. And yet again no comment from you.

Tom Tomaszewski
Dublin, OH (WOSU, 820 AM)

Nature Provides a Scientist with Meaning (April 10, 2005)
The notion of being religious AND scientific is one which we need to confront and explore. I have read Ursula Goodenough's book, The Sacred Depths of Nature and found it thoughtful and reflecting many of my own sentiments about the world. An anecdote. Several years ago, returning on El Al Airline from Israel from a meeting of gene therapy, I found myself next to an American-born young adult who was returning to New Jersey, where he grew up listening to the boss, Bruce Springsteen, after spending two years in school there studying the Torah. He wore a prayer robe with over 500 knotted rules or laws that he had studied. He opened, asking what I did.

Interestingly when I told him that I was a scientist, his retort was that I must hate God! I told him that no, that I started with questions, a sense that I knew nothing and by studying nature, by being resolute and thoughtful and honest, that I held a reverence and respect for nature which brought be closer to a sense of god than I had enjoyed in my youth, raised as a Catholic. My sense was that he started with the word of God and this was enough, that I had to do the hard work of studying nature to find god. Both seemed to be valid but that some dialogue, given the sense of the sacred, as captured in Goodenough's book, was required to break common bread.

Michael Lotze
Pittsburgh, PA (Listens via Web Audio)

Ignoring a Larger Mysterious Reality (April 10, 2005)
I really enjoyed your recent show on the morality of nature, as I have the other few shows I've heard so far. I believe that the contemplation of nature apart from any religious context brings about a sense of humility and wonder which, ironically, fosters more spiritual growth than any religious dogma. That is not to say that the basic tenets of any religion don't hold truth, rather it is the various human perspectives and agendas of religious institutions which are false.

When people ask how can God allow a natural disaster to happen which kills people, I think this is a small-minded perspective which tries to define God in terms of a human personality which protects or punishes in a manner that we do to each other. It ignores a larger more mysterious reality that we are only part of and is not easily perceived.

I appreciated Ursula Goodenough's comment that the animals and some indigenous people who are more in tune with nature were able to escape the recent tsunami which caused so much tragedy. Although I think this was an inescapable tragedy for so many, it raises a good point. Our society is the epitome of being disconnected from that which keeps us alive and ourselves, and then wanting to blame some outside force when sickness or tragedy arises. I will definitely continue to listen to your program and hope at some point an indigenous religion which seeks knowledge of the divine through nature will be covered.

Bryan Sudbury
Salt Lake City, UT (KUER, 90.1 FM)

About Disaster (April 10, 2005)
While driving to church this morning, I heard guest Ursula Goodenough speak about natural disasters as expressions of, or movements toward, spirit — good in the sense that they are part of the workings of nature, which is not all sunsets and flowers and birds. Her words were as uplifting (or "outlifting," as another writer she quoted might put it) as any homily I've heard. Also, her explanation of why she goes to church mean a lot to me — she sings in the choir, believing that the impetus to artistic expression through religion is also natural, and more revealing of mystery than doctrines or texts. I became a church-goer again, after almost 20 years of distrust and doubt, for a similar reason. Now I love sitting in church between my 89-year-old mother and six-year-old granddaughter, singing, looking at the windows and wall hangings and liturgical displays, and letting it all wash over me like a sunset, or even a tsunami.

Albert Salsich
Webster Groves, MO (KWMU, 90.7 FM)

Why (April 10, 2005)
I have never understood why when a horrible thing happens in nature or a person has a disease, people ask: Why does God let this happen? I think that perhaps God Himself wonders why!

Malahat Bahreman
Rochester, NY (WXXI, 1370 AM)

A Tibetan Buddhist Approach (April 10, 2005)
Great program today! I'm hopeful that there are more and more people becoming interested in the ideas your guest spoke of. We have the ability to transcend ourselves horizontally as well as vertically, i.e. come to a realization that we are the process of life and death unfolding observing it's mystery. That is we're it, god, cosmic consciousness or whatever else you want to label it. Her view is very close to that of Tibetan Buddhism. Her comments seem so much more enlightened than many of the people that drone on and on about theology and at least appear to be so attached to their suffering.

Patrick Graney
O'fallon, MO (KWMU, 90.7 FM)

Existence and God (April 10, 2005)
Your program is my Sunday treat! For instance, Jelle De Boers's comments are spot on with my concept of existence and the non-existence of the all popular concept of "God." Your program makes my day and always changes my life in very tangible ways. Living alone on the vineyard with much wonderful stuff to think about. Much thanks.

Bill Hall
Vineyard Haven, MA (WCAI, 90.1 FM)

Not Always So (April 10, 2005)
The comments of your guests brought to mind two concepts that are presented repeatedly in books that I read on Zen Buddhism:

1. Dr. Goodenough spoke about Mystery. That she did not need to have an explanation for everything. To me that equates with the Zen concept of "not knowing" or "don't know." If we spend all our time trying to know, to account for what has happened, and to predict what will happen, then we have little time and energy to be in the present. Here is a related passage from After the Ecstasy… by Jack Kornfield, "Korean Zen Master Seung Sahn trains his students to dwell in what he calls 'don't know mind.' … As with the Cloud of Unknowing or the 'unlearning' of the Tao, wisdom grows by opening to the truth of not knowing."
2. Dr. de Boer spoke of how in the long geological view, everything changes, and of the Japanese acceptance of the changes wrought by earthquakes. Here is a related passage from After the Ecstasy… by Jack Kornfield, "Suzuki Roshi once summed up all of Buddhist teaching in three simple words: 'Not always so.' Conditions always change." The destruction of natural and man-made structures to which we are attached is painful, even deadly, yet inevitable. We would do well to anticipate that we what have at this moment will not always be so; we must memento mori.

Fred Meyer
Evanston, IL (WBEZ, 91.5 FM)

Earthquakes, Fado, Lisbon, Biology (April 10, 2005)
The show which I heard Sunday morning was excellent. On the one hand, faith is irrelevant to earthquakes; on the other, faith is essential to surviving them. The interweaving of the Lisbon 1756 experience and the fado background was inspired, as were the readings from Voltaire… and Mary Oliver.

John Stratton
Old Lyme, CT (WNPR, 89.1 FM)

Iris DeMent (April 9, 2005)
Once again, a most enjoyable program! A most appropriate musical underscore to your segment with Ursula Goodenough would have been the playing of singer/songwriter Iris DeMent's "Let the Mystery Be" from her 1992 album Infamous Angel. (It's been covered by many artists over the years but, I believe, her original rendition is the consummate version.) Upon "discovering" this piece several years ago, it has been a great source of serenity for me and Ursula's point of view about "the mystery" only reinforces my thoughts. As always, thanks for and enlightening and enjoyable program.

Charlie Roberts
Oceanport, NJ (WNYC, 820 AM)

Human Need in Many Forms (April 8, 2005)
Since grammar school I have gravitated toward nature as a way of understanding life and my place in it. I couldn't come to believe in established religions. "The Morality of Nature" is the first time I have come in contact with a media that so directly related my belief. I have listened to many of your shows as each has possibly a different slant on understanding life and as was mentioned in your show. Churches and beliefs are a part of nature. Part of our expression in it. The directness and thoughtfulness in your shows is what I appreciate. I've heard it's hard to sell a religion or belief without portraying it as the one and only truth — much unhappiness and many wars have followed using that concept. Your show puts a sympathetic light on human need in its many forms. Thanks.

Norm Doebel
Emigrant, MT (Listens via Web Audio)

Nature Is Not a Parent (April 7, 2005)
There is no morality in nature. It just happens. To say or assume that nature is moral is to say that we humans are something other than things. To me, the biggest question in theodicy is the concept that God is our Father, not just our Creator but our Father. The term Father is a family term making God much more than a Creator who gives us life but Who loves us and nurtures us within the embrace of a family environment.

Quite bluntly, nature does not treat us like a father or mother would treat their children. The recent tsunami indiscriminately killed men, women, children, and babies. No good human parent would do this. As horrible as it is to contemplate, the concept of God as our Father simply doesn't fit the facts of what happens to us in nature. The God of Reality who kills without discretion is more horrible than human killers like Hitler or Stalin. No human killer plagues us with cancer, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, or a thousand other deadly diseases that not only kill us but take away our humanity and dignity.

Why do we continue to go to our houses of worship until God gives us some answers?

Raymond Johnson
Mesa, AZ (Listens via Web Audio)

Morality and Nature (April 2, 2005)
First off, let me say that I think your programs are great. I listen to them in two ways: ahead of time via the Internet on Friday or Saturday and then again while lying in the sack on Sunday morning at 6 am. I'll have to admit that I often wink off on Sunday morning!

I've almost written to you several times, but this evening I was stimulated for several reasons. For one, I am a graduate of Wesleyan University (1950) where de Boer teaches. I was also struck by a comment that Ms. Goodenough made since her experience parallels mine so closely. I have been singing in our church choir for many years and participate in many church activities yet have much trouble accepting most of our theological beliefs. I was trained as a scientist and just can't simply take things "on faith" without having some reason.

I was just asked by a friend last week "Why the heck do you go to church if so many of these beliefs upset or concern you?" My reasons are similar to Ms. Goodenough's: a place of friendship and acceptance, a place that makes one think about one's place in society and the world. While not much of a "believer" I am very moved by religious experiences such as music, art, and architecture. While in the cathedrals in Paris a few years ago, I was moved to tears just by the settings and when the organist started practicing it was just too much!

OK. Now here is my challenge which I have given several pastors over the years, and not gotten anything like a sensible answer. Why are we expected to believe that "Christ died for us" and all that accompanies this belief. It just doesn't make any sense to me. I've also read a stack of books that I initially thought were going to give me the answer, but they all never succeeded.

Clifford Milner
Rochester, NY (WXXI, 1370 AM)

Looking to Authors of Tolkien and Lewis (April 1, 2005)
Thank you for the reflection on the complexity of natural catastrophe and how often we interpret these events as though we were the center of the universe.

Given the popularity of The Lord of the Rings trilogy by J.R.R. Tolkien and the upcoming release of C.S. Lewis's The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe on film in December of 2005, it would be interesting to look closely at their attitude towards nature. Tolkien uses Saruman's disregard for the trees and the Ents as symbolic of the results of being a fallen humanity. Tolkien displays the evils of the industrial revolution as Saruman devalues all that is good in nature, using it for his own ends.

Lewis does much the same in both The Chronicles of Narnia and in his Space Trilogy, particularly That Hideous Strength. These two friends shared a high regard for nature and the need for humanity to be in a positive relationship to it.

The stewardship of the earth would be a good follow-up to the questions of why does God allow natural disasters. It would be interesting to hear engagement from the literary side. Lewis in his sermon, "The Weight of Glory," speaks of the witness of poets and mythmakers as they give testimony to the glory we find in nature: "They talk as if the west wind could really sweep into a human soul; but it can't. They tell us that 'beauty born of murmuring sound; will pass into a human face; but it won't. Or not yet. For if we take the imagery of Scripture seriously, if we believe that God will one day give us the Morning Star and cause us to put on the splendour of the sun, then we may surmise that both the ancient myths and the modern poetry, so false as history, may be very near the truth as prophecy."

My own take on the issue of disasters. I believe there are three kinds of suffering. (I don't believe all suffering is bad, but can be seen as formative.

1. Stupid suffering: That is suffering you deserve because you act stupidly.
2. Natural suffering: This is the suffering which all humankind encounters — disease, natural disasters, illness, injury. The world is full of danger and we will experience this, not because we have done something wrong, but because we live. (Lewis does a great job with this in Out of the Silent Planet.)
3. For the person of faith/conviction there is religious/moral suffering. This comes as someone holds their conviction in the face of harsh consequences by others. (Maybe this extends to all people who hold strong views, but then some of that would have to be considered stupid suffering. Not all views have equal merit, though all people should be held with equal honor.)

Rev. Craig Williams
Trabuco Canyon, CA (KPCC, 89.3 FM)