God of the Gaps/Problems with Miracles

I have recently started reading Dan Brown’s ‘Angels and Demons’. The content of this and Brown’s other books are the subject of different blog, but something on page 43 prompted me to write this blog, which has been brewing in various forms for a couple of years.
Here’s the quote from page 43:
“…all questions were once spiritual. Since the beginning of time, spirituality and religion have been called on to fill in the gaps that science did not understand. The rising and setting of the sun was once attributed to Helios and a flaming chariot. Earthquake and tidal waves were the work of Poseidon. Science has now proven those gods to be false idols. Soon all gods will be proven to be false idols.”
Dan Brown is spot on here, that science is steadily proving all gods to be false idols that do not really exist. The problem is that Dan Brown is countering a doctrine that isn’t true. It’s known as the God of the Gaps.

Taking the Christian God, the God of the Gaps theory says exactly what Dan Brown implies: there are some things that science can explain, and there are some things it can’t explain. The things we can’t explain rationally – the ‘gaps’ in our understanding – that’s where God comes in.
For example, we can’t explain how Jesus turned water into wine, so it must be ‘a God thing’.
Going back further, as Dan Brown describes, we couldn’t understand earthquakes, so people supposed they must be the gods at work. And there is the problem with the God of the Gaps theory – we can now explain earthquakes, so we are left with one less thing to attribute to God. What if we discover a mechanism by which water and wine can interchange? That ticks another phenomenon off the God list and adds it to the science list. Eventually, the God list will be empty. Error.

There are a few things to say here:
What is a better theology than God of the Gaps?
What are miracles, and do they really happen?
What should Christians do when science explains miracles like the river of blood in Exodus?

God of the Gaps
There are many problems with the God of the Gaps theory – I’ve already explained that as the gaps shrink, so does God. But more fundamentally, the God of the Gaps theory assumes that there are two explanations for phenomena – science and God – and it plays the two against each other, as if a phenomenon can only have one explanation.
Here is an example, stolen from John Polkinghorne – “why is the kettle boiling?” There are two explanations. The first explanation is “because the electrical energy in the element is being converted to heat energy in the water, which causes its temperature to rise to boiling point”. This is completely true. The second explanation is “because I want a cup of tea”. Also completely true. The first explanation provides the how of why the kettle is boiling, and the second explanation provides the why. While slightly simplistic, I find this a useful distinction of the complementarity of science and theology. Science explains how, theology explains why. Both are needed, and each complements the other.

What is a better theology than the God of the Gaps? Colossians 1: 17 is. Colossians 1:17 is one verse that refers to a better theology. It says “in him (God) all things hold together”. It’s saying that God holds everything together. He created everything, and continually maintains it. Without God, the universe would simply cease. He is continually involved in it.

God of the Gaps: God is responsible for anything that science cannot explain.
Colossians 1:17: God is responsible for everything, science explains how it works.

God is the creator, but he hasn’t finished creating – he creates new organisms every day! He doesn’t do with in a genie-esqe zap, but he is nonetheless creating things. Science explores and explains how he does this.
The God of the Gaps is a silly theory. But unfortunately many Christians seem to hold to it, especially when it comes to evolution (you should have known I would mention the E word soon!).

Obviously some Christians completely reject evolution – this isn’t about them. Some Christians, such as myself, fully accept evolution, including human evolution. But it seems to me that most Christians are somewhere in the middle – many seem to accept evolution to an extent, but not fully. Comments like this abound: “yeah, I believe in evolution, but I don’t think humans evolved like other animals – I think God made us specially”, or “I believe in most of evolution, but there are some gaps that just seem to big – God must have been involved there” (see what I did there?!), or “I’m happy with evolution, but how did life actually start in the first place – God must have given it a kick-start”, or “evolution is great, but what about the big bang – something must have started the big bang, surely – isn’t that God?”.

Do you see what’s going on here? People are accepting bits of evolution, but pointing out gaps in the scientific understanding, and putting God in there! This is God of the Gaps! What happens when science explains the origin of life (it has already dealt with human evolution and many other evolutionary ‘gaps’ such as the evolution of the eye)? That’s right – God gets squeezed out.

God doesn’t just fill in the gaps, like some sort of divine polyfiller! God is the bricks, the cement, the plaster, the polyfiller, everything!

Miracles
I hate that word. Miracle. It’s caused me problems for at least two years. It’s one of those rubbish words that has a very loose definition and no-one really knows what it means. Here’s dictionary.com’s definition:

“an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause”

In other words, it’s something that we can’t explain, so we attribute it to God. Or, in shorthand, a Gap. A miracle is anything that happens in one of those Gaps. This is clearly not a good definition, because as the Gaps close with increased scientific understanding, events cease to be defined as miracles.

A brief scan of the bible seems to reveal that the word ‘miracle’ doesn’t appear much as a noun – it’s usually an adjective, for example ‘miraculous signs’. A sign that is miraculous. As opposed to a sign that isn’t miraculous.

A sign points to something, and it makes sense that a miraculous sign would point to God. The thing that makes it miraculous is that it inspires awe or wonder because of its unusualness, and that it points to God. Many disastrous things are unusual, but don’t inspire wonder or point to God. Miraculous signs, or miracles, do. Whether we can explain how the event occurs doesn’t matter, and shouldn’t come into the definition of a miracle. A ‘miracle’ is no less amazing and glorifying to God just because we can explain how it happens.

A brief side note on miraculous healing – sometimes amazing healings are said to be miracles. If the healing is unusual, inspires awe and wonder, and points to God, I would say it is a ‘miracle’. But remember Colossians 1:17 – God is continually involved in creation. The real miracle of healing is that the human body can heal itself. Usually this happens gradually, but sometimes it happens in an instant and we call it a miracle. The fact that the body can heal itself anyway should maybe be called a miracle.

The Colossians 1:17 thing is very important. We shouldn’t think of these miraculous signs as a Genie-God going ‘zap!’ to change something. God is already continually involved in his creation, sustaining and maintaining it.

The purpose of science is to study the natural world. Science has produced ‘theories’ and ‘laws’ to describe how the natural world works. Science describes God’s creation. Sometimes things happen that don’t fit the normal pattern – such as water turning into wine.

This raises big questions, such as:
If God is constantly maintaining creation, why are there things like earthquakes at all?
Would God really set up the natural world to follow laws and patterns and then just change things sometimes?
If God doesn’t ‘zap’ the world to change things, but is already in control of stuff, then why and how should we pray for miracles?

Question 1: Why are there natural disasters?
Answer 1: This is really a separate topic, but essentially: just because God is in control of everything doesn’t mean bad things don’t happen. Even using the Zap model, where God sometimes intervenes before sitting back for a rest, doesn’t answer this question – we could ask of the Zap model “why doesn’t God Zap to stop earthquakes happening?” The reality is that even though God is sustaining creation, creation is still broken, so natural disasters happen. This does not mean God causes natural disasters. It means that, for the moment, he allows them to happen. He could Zap them away, but then where would he stop? Should he Zap all murderers too? Thieves? Liars? It would, of course, remove free will (another debate for another time!).
Creation is broken. God still does amazing things through his creation (we’ve already mentioned healing), but the creation isn’t perfect. But one day he has promised it will be, so this isn’t a permanent state of affairs.

Question 2: Miracles break God’s neat creation ‘pattern’ – sounds like a random God, not the God of order from Genesis 1 – where’s his consistency?
Answer 2: Remember that scientific laws and theories are descriptions of how creation works. Creation is there and science describes it rather than science makes the rules and creation has to follow. Some (such as John Polkinghorne) comment on the intrinsic unpredictabilities in nature – scientific laws we use to describe the world are not infallible, and sometimes, very unusual things happen. Miracles are not a question of science, like ‘is it possible’. This is God – it’s possible! It’s a question of God’s consistency. But God is consistent as a person, not as a rule like gravity. God is not constrained by scientific laws, and even scientific laws allow room for unusual events. God continually sustains nature, mostly in a way that we can describe using science. But sometimes, more remarkable things happen.

Question 3: If God’s sustaining it all, where does that leave prayer, for example for healing?
Answer 3: Again, this is really another topic, and I’m not yet ready to write properly about prayer, but a few points can be made. Firstly, the bible clearly indicates that prayer is good and prayer works. Secondly, it is also clear that God isn’t the only power in the world, and some (NOT all) illnesses are caused by other spiritual powers (demons), so we should pray against these. Third, with healing, I’ve mentioned that the body heals itself – sometimes we just need God to speed it up a bit. Fourth, we shouldn’t pray against the facts. For example, if we see a fire engine, we shouldn’t pray ‘please don’t let the fire be at my house’, because the fire has already started (somewhere) and nothing can change that. It is better to pray for safety and lack of damage etc. The topic of prayer, including why God sometimes says no, is for another time.

Explaining miracles
I watched a TV programme a few years ago about the plagues of Egypt, explaining how each could have been caused by ‘natural’ causes. This article from The Times says a similar thing. How should Christians respond when events we think are ‘miracles’ turn out to have a normal, natural explanation.
Well firstly, we should point out the error of implying a nature vs God battle. Colossians 1: 17! God sustains it all. Whether science can explain something or not doesn’t change the fact that God is always present. ‘Miracle’ should not be defined by its lack of explainability, but by the facts that it is unusual, inspires awe and wonder, and points to God.

A few points to end with
There is no causal explanation of miracles in the bible. There is no formula, only the power of God.
In the New Testament, in addition to ‘sign’, the words ‘power’ and ‘wonder’ are used. Power – focuses on the cause (God). Wonder – focuses on the effect. Sign – focuses on the purpose.

Screensaver

My laptop screensaver is a rolling animation of some of my photos. I have a 'screensaver' folder of all my favourite photos - just over 1000 of them. At night, I like to put the screensaver on, and watch the photos while listening to my playlist of favourite music. I think you should do this too. It's good to sit back and look over the memories every now and then.

Beauty and the Geek/Tribute to Tara McComas

Strangely, I really like this show. I generally despise reality TV, but Beauty and the Geek is one of 2 exceptions (the other being the genius that is The Mole).

If you don’t know, here’s a brief description of BATG. Ten ‘beauties’ - attractive, bimboish females with very little common sense or general knowledge, and certainly no specific knowledge, and ten ‘geeks’ – men with no style or social skills, but incredible brains, are put in a mansion together.

The beauties and geeks are paired up and each episode they have to complete challenges – one for the beauties and one for the geeks. The beauties challenge will be something to do with maths, science, logic etc – typical examples are computer assembly, library searching and debating. The geeks challenge will be about socialising, fashion etc – typical ones include dancing, party planning and getting girls’ phone numbers. In each pairing, the beauty and the geek have to teach each other what they will need to succeed in the challenges. The winners of each challenge get to send a team to the elimination room, where two teams take a quiz about what they have been learning. The losing team is eliminated.

The brilliant thing about BATG is that it forces the contestants out of their comfort zones and pushes them into completely alien situations. They are forced to learn from someone completely different to themselves and they learn to be more rounded people. The transformations that you see are incredible and inspiring. The show is essentially about making better people.

There is one thing that occurs in every series, is seen as the highlight, and which, for some reason, I don’t like. This event is ‘Geek makeover day’. The girls get to makeover the boys (should that be make the boys over?). They choose new clothes, hairstyles, beardstyles, and accessories. And it has a great effect – some of the transformations are literally jaw-dropping. While watching part of the fifth USA series, I understood what had been niggling at me about the Geek makeover. This will also lead into some other comments about some of the contestants.

The geek makeover came and went, and all the geeks were transformed. Many commented on their new confidence as a result of the makeover. Joe, however, did not like his new look at all. It had taken away the little confidence he’d had. While talking about this, he made some comments that made me realise why I didn’t like this part of the show:

“I was hoping that in the makeover they would respect my conservative ways, respect generally who I was and the look I was going for and build constructively upon that instead of saying ‘well that’s nice who you are but it has no relevance upon regular society.’”

“I actually hate this look, I can’t stand this, I’m not used to this. This is not me this is not who I am.”

“It’s so difficult to have such a great amount of faith in somebody when they’re telling you everything you’ve done up to this point has been wrong.”

“…to give up something that is so close to you, for somebody else’s agreement of what is fashion and what isn’t.”

That last one is the clincher – the geeks were transformed into what was somebody else’s idea of fashion, and on this occasion, one geek just hated it. I have no problem with trying to look good, but I resonate with Joe’s first comment, that his style and conservatism should have been taken into account.

I could rant for ages about fashion, but it would get boring. But I want to say that the main problem I have with fashion is that it dictates how people should look, and it dictates what is and isn't attractive. This should be for individuals to decide. I think it's great that the makeovers give the geeks massive confidence boosts, but Joe's situation highlights the problem - not everyone agrees with 'fashion'!

Now onto the other comments.
To introduce the central characters:
Tom – a friendly, popular geek who by this point in the series had really come out of his shell
Randi – a very loud, insulting and obnoxious beauty who had changed very little so far
Joe (pictured) – a very difficult geek who is attention-seeking, melodramatic, and struggles to engage with the challenges
Tara (pictured) – Joe’s partner, who finds him difficult but has been persevering graciously

Soon after the makeover challenge, talk turned to the supposed hauntedness of the mansion. Tara in particular was terrified of ghosts, zombies etc, and had been having nightmares. While Tara and Joe were asleep in their room, the other contestants decided to play a prank which involved dressing Tom up as a vampire and trying to scare the sleeping Tara. When they came into the bedroom, Joe woke up and stood in their way, saying he didn’t like the joke and wouldn’t let them do it. He was defending his team-mate. Randi became incredibly rude to Joe, including making comments about how he and Tara were performing as a team. The abuse was really quite relentless and staggering, and in the end Joe lost his patience and, as he couldn’t get a word in edgeways, he spat at Randi’s feet. This sent Randi into even more of a tirade, and most of the other housemates were suitably shocked at Joe and sided with Randi, although a couple saw sense and pointed out that Randi was not blameless. Joe did the only thing he could and walk away to sit in the kitchen. Tom, feeling it was partly his fault, being the one dressed as a vampire, went to talk to Joe, while two of the girls woke Tara and told him Joe had spat on Randi – a subtle but significant misrepresentation of the incident. Tara came downstairs to find Randi in full flow in Joe’s face, and with literally the most composure and grace I have ever seen on TV, managed to calm Randi down a bit and took Joe away.

Firstly, I was disappointed with how most contestants took Randi’s side and put the blame on Joe. Randi ranted at him for ages and was very insulting. Joe made one slip, but apart from that was calm and dignified. Everyone makes mistakes, and Joe did. But Randi’s behaviour wasn’t a slip, it was malicious. That is surely harder to forgive.

Secondly, the really amazing thing was that, after all Tara’s problems with Joe – he stank, he snored very loudly, he was always negative and fed up, he contributed very little to their team, he was self-centred and an attention-seeker – after all that, and after hearing he had spat on someone, she came down and helped him out. She stood by him, and defended him, even though most of the time she couldn't stand him. It was an unbelievable spectacle of grace. Joe had been, by a mile, the most difficult geek in BATG history, because he just didn’t try to change. Tara was, equally, the most amazing contestant in BATG history because she just persisted with Joe – she kept on encouraging and forgiving him, even when he didn’t change. It was magnificent to watch.

So this is really a tribute to Tara McComas, who is genuinely inspirational.

The main reason I don't like iTunes

iTunes is completely hopeless for organising music.

iTunes has no consistency is labeling and categorising music in the player itself. For example, take the Delirious album World Service. Tracks 1-11 are by Delirious, track 12 is by Delirious and Daniel Bedingfield. If I am looking through my Delirious music on iTunes, this song is missing! It's filed under a different artist ('Delirious and Daniel Bedingfield'). Therefore I am unable to browse my Delirious collection satisfactorily (especially as Delirious have worked with several different artists, giving multiple Delirious entries in iTunes).

This problem is particularly exacerbated in film soundtracks, such as The Lord of the Rings - composed by Howard Shore, but using a total of 11 solo artists over the three soundtracks. Therefore I cannot see or play the three albums together, as they are filed under 12 different artists!

It seems to me that iTunes is aimed at listeners who generally want to listen to one track at a time and then find a different track to listen to, or listeners who only use playlists, or listeners who are happy to put their entire music collection on random.

I fit into none of these categories. For me, the best experiences of music are when I listen to a complete album, and this is the thing that iTunes is useless for.

The Apprentice

I’ve seen this show a couple of times, and I just don’t get it. Everyone in it is horrible, and I can’t see why anyone would want to work for Alan Sugar. I have several objections to the programme:

1. It centres on sales ability. Contestants have to sell their product. There is so much more to business than this.
2. The contestants act like kids – lying, moaning, backstabbing, betraying, selfish etc. Especially in the boardroom, when they are asked why they should be hired and all they can say is why the other person shouldn’t be hired. It’s a farce.
3. Alan Sugar is very nasty. He will frequently ask someone to speak and then cut right through them. I don’t care who he is or what position he has, this is just downright rudeness. It annoyed me after it happened about twice, and it happens all the time. He is essentially a bully – I would never want him as my boss.
4. The show is based around the magic six-figure salary. The whole point is to get that salary. The whole programme is centred on greed. This is not a good thing to make a TV programme about.

Rant over.

Computer

This is my 4th blog in about 15 minutes. I haven't had a computer for about 5 days, they've been building up.
At fist, it was difficult not having immediate access to my computer (mainly for music and internet). Then I got used to it a bit more. I think it was good for me, and I think 'computer fasting' is a good thing for me. I don't want to become to reliant on it.
How reliant are you on your computer? Try giving it up for a week or so. For added challenge, give up your mobile too!

Communion

When Christians take communion, why are they usually so solemn about it? Sometimes solemn doesn't cover it - it's mournful! Isn't communion a kind of celebration and worship of a really good thing? Shouldn't Christians generally be happy and excited when taking it? People look like they think it's the worst thing in the world that Jesus died. Of course, in a way, it was tragic. But think about what it accomplished and show some joyful gratitude, please!

Vocalists

One of my best friends is very into music. Sometimes I will introduce him to a band. Sometimes he will like it, sometimes he will not. Sometimes the reason for not liking the band is the sound of the vocalist's voice.

Another of my best friends is very into singing. When she tells me about an artist she likes, she usually likes them because they have a great voice.

As for me, I don't seem to care anywhere near as much about vocalists as these two friends. If I don't like a band or artist, it's never because of the sound of the voice. In fact, I don't think it's ever because of the sound of any individual instrument. If I don't like a band, it's because of the overall sound.
Having said that, there are certain vocalists who I particularly like (in fact, another of my friends has one of my favourite voices in the world). However, I don't think that a voice (or any individual instrument) would make me like an entire band.

I guess what I'm saying is that I tend to judge on the overall sound, whereas my two friends would judge specifically on the vocalist, and this is enough to sway their opinion either way.

I realise that this is one of my blogs that doesn't really have a point. Never mind.

Vampires

Since when did vampires become sexy?

This just makes no sense to me. Mythologically, vampires are undead – meaning they are animated, sentient human corpses. They feed off the blood of living humans. They are powerfully magical, cunning and merciless. They are pure evil!
This is, at least, the ‘traditional’ view, and the view that seems still dominant in much of the horror-fantasy genre. Note that term, horror. These creatures inspire horror – that’s a very strong word indeed.
In other parts of the genre, vampires are portrayed as suave and charismatic, but still ruthlessly evil.
In other parts, they have become sexy. Now, I don’t watch much TV and haven’t seen that many films, but I think Twilight is an example of the ‘sexy vampire’. I just don’t get it. Vampires, surely, are anything but sexy. They are one of the biggest fantasy villains (along with werewolves, ogres etc).



I did a very small amount of research, and apparently (be aware that of all the blogs I’ve written, this is probably the topic I know least about), the ‘sexy vampire’ can actually be traced back to Bram Stoker’s Dracula and beyond. I must admit I was mildly shocked, as I thought it was a much more recent phenomenon.
Apparently (I haven’t read it), Stoker’s book has strong sexual themes and is a major influence on the ‘sexy vampire’. A few years before Dracula was Le Fanu’s Carmilla, about a female lesbian vampire, and this book greatly influenced Stoker’s.

That’s all I’ve found out so far, but I was intrigued by this information. It seems that Le Fanu and Stoker (and maybe others) bridge the gap between the classic vampire and the sexy vampire. Personally, for me, vampires will always be horrific, and I’m please to see that the horrific vampire still exists today. I am baffled by the new sexy vampire, which seems to be a completely different creature. I’m confused as to why these new creatures are called vampires – I suspect it’s because of the drinking blood habit, though I know nothing about the Twilight books and other ‘sexy vampire’ literature and films.

One more thought – I think (correct me if I’m wrong) that the new sexy vampires are alive, rather than undead. This would admittedly make them sexier. Though I am confused as to the transmission of sexy vampirism. Classical vampirism is usually transmitted by a lethal bite (often to the neck) from an existing vampire – the victim then awakens from the dead in its vampiric form. If sexy vampires are not dead, then how does one become one?

As I said, I know very little about classical vampirism and even less about sexy vampirism, so please enlighten me if you know more than I do.

Neon Planet

I heard a poem read at Spring Harvest by Richard Hasnip from Saltmine Theatre Company. He literally wrote it just before performing it - it was on the back of an envelope!

Here it is:

Neon Planet, by Richard Hasnip

This neon planet’s strange, I find
It frightens me
This pluralistic, hedonistic, shark-infested fantasy
This ‘tolerance’ this sugar-coated poison dressed as openness
That revels and rejoices in a Harlequin caress

This modern planet’s strange I find
There is no real value
But plastic preachers sermonise to sell, to sell, to sell to you
And Bibles black with certainty are stacked beside Da Vinci Codes
What’s true, what’s false, what’s fantasy?
No-one cares and no-one knows

And can eternal wisdom thrive
In a polystyrene time?
Can God compete in cyberspace?
Does he play dice online?

This neon planet’s strange, I find
It frightens me
I’d rather shelter in a cave of unanimity
I’d rather not confront this hall of mirrors
Twisting private truths
Creating hateful, ugly things distorted and confused.

And yet I know I have to venture
From this cosy sanctuary
Into a blinded neon world that will not welcome me
But I will reach through televisions
And I’ll stretch through computer screens
And I will sing through amplifiers
What forgiveness means
And I’ll become a laughing stock
If that’s what I need to do
To tell a modern plastic planet
Something true

'Fashionable' lateness

Since when did lateness become ‘fashionable’?

I’ve been pondering this question for a few days. Here are some thoughts – some are mine, some are stolen.

• For most events, being late isn’t actually fashionable at all. It’s just rude and disrespectful. You wouldn’t be late for an audience with the queen, so why do you think it is acceptable to be late for an audience with anyone else?

• Lateness says ‘the other thing I was doing was more important to me than the time you are giving up to do this’.

• There may be a power thing going on too: ‘I can get away with being late to this meeting because I am very important, so people will excuse me’.

• One of the main events that people seem to think it is particularly fashionable to be late for is parties (read ‘any form of informal social gathering’).

• Parties (many of them anyway) are ‘come-and-go’ affairs, possibly with an official start and end time but with allowance for arrival and departure at any time within that time period.

• People have different boundaries on ‘how late is too late’. There is no agreed time, so someone is bound to be offended. If something is arranged at 8, arrive at 8. If you mean ‘any time between 8 and 9.30, say that!’

• One of the main reasons people arrive ‘fashionably’ late for parties is to avoid the perceived awkwardness at the start, involving situations where not much happens.

• The reason that not much happens in these early stages of parties is because not many people are there because they’re all being ‘fashionably’ late!

• If people arrived to parties earlier, there would be no ‘awkwardness’ (for more on this see another blog), and everyone would have more time together.

• Being late to a party is, in theory, no less disrespectful than being late for any other event. It’s still saying ‘you aren’t important enough to make the effort to maximise time with’.

• In practice, however, ‘fashionable’ lateness is expected at parties, so hosts rarely get offended by latecomers. Hosts also tend to set party start/end times much further apart than they would if they knew everyone would be theree for the whole time. This is so that guests can arrive late or leave early and take advantage of the status of parties as ‘come-and-go’ affairs.

• People generally attend parties for what they can get out of it (a good time, get laid, whatever). Therefore lateness is no issue for people, because anything that happens when an individual is yet to arrive is of no consequence to that individual. How about going to a party for what you can give to it, and how you can invest in friendships with the people there? See a party as a place you are needed for your contribution.

• I am not suggesting that party formats should be changed.

• I am suggesting that people should examine their reasons for being late to these and any other events.

• I know I haven’t really tackled the opening question yet. The ‘fashionable’ element comes in because it is perceived that people who arrive on time are subject to the early-party awkwardness, and are therefore losers and unfashionable. The trendy, fashionable, people arrive late, avoid that social awkwardness, and hope to make a grand entrance and be greeted like conquering heroes. After all, these tardy guests are what the party is all about, right?

'Comfortably share silence'

Awkward silences are good. They provide two things: awkwardness and silence (duh!).

Awkwardness is a good thing once in a while. We (i.e. modern Britons) find life far too comfortable a lot of the time, safe in our cultured friendship circles. It’s good to shake this up a bit, and awkward silences are great ways to remove some of the usual comfort of most social situations.

Silence is also a wonderful thing. We spend most of our lives in noisy places or with background noise on (music, TV etc.). Sometimes it’s important to savour silence.

A quote from Pulp Fiction (excuse the language):

- Don't you hate that?
- Hate what?
- Uncomfortable silences. Why do we feel it's necessary to yak about bullshit? In order to be comfortable?
- I don't know. That's a good question.
- That's when you know you found somebody really special, when you can just shut the fuck up for a minute. Comfortably share silence.

This is so true, and links into the awkwardness thing. Whether a silence is ‘awkward’ (i.e. preceded by an ill-considered comment) or not, most people just find silence uncomfortable.

But I’ve always thought (since I was literally about 7) that silence between friends is a really important thing. The above quote just sums it up perfectly. There are a handful of people who I can sit with, doing nothing, and share silence, and this is such an important thing to do.

Obituary to Common Sense (stolen from The Times, via Steve Lloyd)

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:
Knowing when to come in out of the rain; Why the early bird gets the worm; Life isn't always fair; and Maybe it was my fault.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in charge).

His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place.

Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children.

It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an Aspirin to a student; but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims.

Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in
her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death, by his parents, Truth and Trust, by his wife, Discretion, by his daughter, Responsibility, and by his son, Reason.

He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers;
I Know My Rights
I Want It Now
Someone Else Is To Blame
I'm A Victim

Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone.

If you still remember him, pass this on. If not, join the majority and do nothing.