Year: 2004

Obsessive-Oppressive Parents (OOPs)

Yesterday I mentioned a theory that excessive modern hygiene–which is a form of risk reduction–leads to the under- and overdevelopment of different aspects of our immune system. If parents don’t let kids go out and play in the dirt, their developing immune systems don’t get the workout they need to develop properly.

That’s the theory anyway.

Unfortunatley, this is not the only area in which parents are inclined to be overprotective of their children today. In the last few decades, parents have been driven absolutely wild with worry about their children (and the media is in significant measure to blame) and this has led them to take an extraordinarily risk-averse approach to parenting that would have struck prior generations (and which does strike other cultures today) as obsessive.

This is true among devout Catholic and Evangelical parents, as well, including homeschoolers (and I count myself as a BIG fan of homeschooling; should I ever be so fortunate as to marry and have kids, I am determined to do what is necessary for them to have a solid homeschooled education).

Recognizing the horriffic culture rot going on around them, Christians have frequently tried to shield children excessively from the challenges of modern culture (e.g. not letting them see scary movies, violent movies, movies with cuss words in them, etc., etc., etc.).

At times, it seems that modern parents (both religious and non-religious alike) are driven by the assumption that they must protect their children from every possible danger or they are being bad parents.

No.

Quite the contrary.

Their job as parents is to raise children who are able to function successfully as adults in the culture as it is, not to forever shield them from any and all dangers.

Since our culture today poses many risks (to adults as well as children!) that means children must be prepared to deal with these risks. The only way for that to happen is to allow children to be progressively exposed to more and more risk–and feel both the rewards of responsible behavior and the pain of irresponsible behavior–so that they learn how to manage it.

Sure, when kids are first born they are completely helpless and have to be shielded and taken care of in virtually everything, but as they grow they have to be allowed to face risks and dangers, in a very limited way at first but with progressively more self-reliance as they age. (Some things, of course, being things to which parents must never willingly let them be exposed, like porn).

If children are shielded from danger and never allowed to make their own decisions (even foolish ones) as they age then bad consequences will follow.

Certain aspects of their psyche will underdevelop and others will overdevelop.

How many parents have had their kids go off to college and, for the first time suddenly free of direct parental control, go completely nuts? How many other parents have kids who can’t seem to cut the cord of dependence on parents, well into physical adulthood? How many have both happenb? These are consequences of not letting children face risk and assume responsibility as they grow.

Even secularists are noting the phenomenon.

HERE’S AN ARTICLE FROM PSYCHOLOGY TODAY ON THE PROBLEM.

Okay, I'm Not Sure I Buy This Theory

HERE’S A STORY QUOTING YUSHCHENKO’S CHIEF OF STAFF SAYING THAT ELEMENTS OF THE KGB MAY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE DIOXIN POISONING.

I would assume that the KGB (a) has access to all kinds of poisons that are far less detectable than dioxin and (b) knows how to actually use such poisons so as to guarantee the death of the victim.

Dioxin appears to be highly detectable (as indicated by the fact they were able to confirm it by testing a living, metabolizing subject long after the poisoning occurred). It also normally builds up over time before it becomes fatal. Nobody has really known till now, it seems, what it does in high, sudden doses. Thus it would be an unreliable way of killing someone and one that would make the fact that a poisoning occurred abundantly clear (leading to an investigation and public outrage).

This sounds more to me like it was the work of amateurs–local Ukranian politicos who had access to dioxin and decided to use it on Yushchenko without really having expertise in a wide range of poisons or how to use them.

Bought Me A New Droid

The oscillating airflow droid that I keep in my bedroom finally conked out, so I went out and bought a new one this weekend (yes, we may still need droids of this type at this time of year here in a semi-desert environment).

Put it together myself, though the box it came in looked like it had been previously opened and taped shut, so the  K-Mart Jawas who sold it to me might have been trying to pull a fast one.

Will be sleeping with one eye open for a few nights.

Not sure if I can trust it yet.

If I can’t, I’ll have to take it down to Anchorhead and have its memory flushed.

WHAT ON EARTH IS HE TALKING ABOUT?

Okay, I’m Not Sure I Buy This Theory

HERE’S A STORY QUOTING YUSHCHENKO’S CHIEF OF STAFF SAYING THAT ELEMENTS OF THE KGB MAY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE DIOXIN POISONING.

I would assume that the KGB (a) has access to all kinds of poisons that are far less detectable than dioxin and (b) knows how to actually use such poisons so as to guarantee the death of the victim.

Dioxin appears to be highly detectable (as indicated by the fact they were able to confirm it by testing a living, metabolizing subject long after the poisoning occurred). It also normally builds up over time before it becomes fatal. Nobody has really known till now, it seems, what it does in high, sudden doses. Thus it would be an unreliable way of killing someone and one that would make the fact that a poisoning occurred abundantly clear (leading to an investigation and public outrage).

This sounds more to me like it was the work of amateurs–local Ukranian politicos who had access to dioxin and decided to use it on Yushchenko without really having expertise in a wide range of poisons or how to use them.

Types Of Souls

A reader writes:

I was listening to Ave Maria Radio approx. 2 – 3 weeks ago, and you answered a question from a listener regarding the kinds of souls.  For example, you had mentioned that plants have a vegetated soul….what do humans and animals have???

According to this division of souls:

  1. Plants have vegetative souls that allow them to live, grow, and reproduce,
  2. Animals have sensitive souls that allow them to feel and (usually) move from place to place, and
  3. Humans have rational souls that allow us to have rational thought.

These distinctions go back to Aristotle’s discussion of the powers of the soul but were picked up by the Medievals (e.g., Aquinas). An important point that was stressed by them is that each entity only has one soul, which is the substantial form of the body. Therefore, it’s not that animals have two souls and humans have three. Each soul type includes the functions of lower types.

STOP PRESSES! Flew Still An Atheist?

Whoa!

CHECK THIS OUT!

According to Rationalist International, Antony Flew has issued a statement affirming atheism and appearing to suggest that, although he notes the advance of science-oriented arguments for the existence of God, he has not been convinced by them.

Something is rotten in Denmark (and, well, most of the rest of Europe, anyway).

Given the claims made in the ABC news story (which quoted a telephone interview with Flew) and the interview with Flew that Philosophia Chrisi is publishing (which quotes Flew responding to questions about his "theism" and describing his own views as "deistic"), I see four possibilities:

  1. The Rationalist International folks are to blame: They’ve hoaxed  in some degree.
  2. ABC News and Philosophia Christi are to blame: ABC News turning out to be incompetent (not at all implausible) and Gary Habermas and/or the Philosophia Christi folks turning out to have hoaxed in some degree (not at all likely) or otherwise botched the interview.
  3. Flew is to blame: He has himself staged a hoax (not likely) or has flipped back to atheism and doesn’t want to admit he previously accepted belief in God.
  4. No one is to blame: This is some colossally-implausible Rashomon-like misunderstanding.

Time will tell what is the case.

UPDATE!: It appears that option #1 may well be the case. Despite the fact that the R.I. bulletin is headlined in a way that conveys the impression the statement it reports was generated recently (it is headlined Bulletin #137 [12 December 2004]), a careful reading of the text accompanying Flew’s statement indicating that it is an old statement, not one issued in response to the present reports. Rationalist International seems to have republished the statement in an attempt to create confusion regarding Flew’s present position.

Be warned, as you may well encounter people passing off the Rationalist International statement as a recent one.

The bulletin also reports a quote dated October 2004 from Flew in which he appears to refuse to affirm the proposition "Probably God exists." There are two problems with this, however: (1) The quotation only includes Flew’s response to a proposition put to him and does not include the proposition itself; we have to rely on R.I. for that. (2) Many philosophers for technical reasons might assert the impossibility of assessing the "probablity" (construed in a mathematical sense) of God’s existence but still feel justified in believing in him for other reasons. Flew may fall into that category.

What is ultimately needed to settle the matter is a new statement from Flew, but it appears at this point that Rationalist International has acted in bad faith by republishing previous statements instead of contacting Flew directly and obtaining a new one.

STOP PRESSES! Flew Still An Atheist?

Whoa!

CHECK THIS OUT!

According to Rationalist International, Antony Flew has issued a statement affirming atheism and appearing to suggest that, although he notes the advance of science-oriented arguments for the existence of God, he has not been convinced by them.

Something is rotten in Denmark (and, well, most of the rest of Europe, anyway).

Given the claims made in the ABC news story (which quoted a telephone interview with Flew) and the interview with Flew that Philosophia Chrisi is publishing (which quotes Flew responding to questions about his "theism" and describing his own views as "deistic"), I see four possibilities:

  1. The Rationalist International folks are to blame: They’ve hoaxed  in some degree.
  2. ABC News and Philosophia Christi are to blame: ABC News turning out to be incompetent (not at all implausible) and Gary Habermas and/or the Philosophia Christi folks turning out to have hoaxed in some degree (not at all likely) or otherwise botched the interview.
  3. Flew is to blame: He has himself staged a hoax (not likely) or has flipped back to atheism and doesn’t want to admit he previously accepted belief in God.
  4. No one is to blame: This is some colossally-implausible Rashomon-like misunderstanding.

Time will tell what is the case.

UPDATE!: It appears that option #1 may well be the case. Despite the fact that the R.I. bulletin is headlined in a way that conveys the impression the statement it reports was generated recently (it is headlined Bulletin #137 [12 December 2004]), a careful reading of the text accompanying Flew’s statement indicating that it is an old statement, not one issued in response to the present reports. Rationalist International seems to have republished the statement in an attempt to create confusion regarding Flew’s present position.

Be warned, as you may well encounter people passing off the Rationalist International statement as a recent one.

The bulletin also reports a quote dated October 2004 from Flew in which he appears to refuse to affirm the proposition "Probably God exists." There are two problems with this, however: (1) The quotation only includes Flew’s response to a proposition put to him and does not include the proposition itself; we have to rely on R.I. for that. (2) Many philosophers for technical reasons might assert the impossibility of assessing the "probablity" (construed in a mathematical sense) of God’s existence but still feel justified in believing in him for other reasons. Flew may fall into that category.

What is ultimately needed to settle the matter is a new statement from Flew, but it appears at this point that Rationalist International has acted in bad faith by republishing previous statements instead of contacting Flew directly and obtaining a new one.

Roll Your Babies In Dirt!

What would happen to a kid  if he got absolutely no exercise at all–just sat (or lay) around all the time?

Well, it’s pretty obvious: Some parts of him (like his muscles) would underdevelop while other parts of him (like his waistline) would overdevelop.

Kids, like people in general, need exercise. God designed us so that we need to work out to grow properly.

That’s why God gave kids the instinct to gain excitement (before the invention of TV and video games) by going outdoors and running around (in packs) and playing and wrestling and rolling around.

In the dirt.

And getting cuts and scrapes.

Which the dirt gets in.

Now this is the part that drives a lot of contemporary American parents wild with worry. Cuts? Scrapes? Dirt? In? Don’t you know that dirt has viruses and bacteria and parasites in it???

But wait: Maybe that’s part of the plan.

God designed children (and the rest of us) to live a rambunctious–and dirty–existence, not to waltz around in a sterile Star Trek-like environment. That’s why he gave us an immune system.

But maybe, just like kids in general need exercise, so do their imune systems. And if their immune systems don’t get the workout they were designed to have, what then? It might seem reasonable to suppose that some aspects of their immune system would underdevelop (leaving them vulnerable to one set of maladies) and other aspects of it would overdevelop–leading to . . . leading to . . .

Allergies.

At least according to one prominent theory, known (unsurprisingly) as the hygiene hypothesis, the excessive (by historical standards) hygiene has been imposed on children of late have led part of their immune systems to overdevelop.

The result is that their immune system is like a bunch of soldiers itching for a fight. When they aren’t given something that’s a real threat to fight, they get trigger-happy and start going after things that aren’t real threats. Hence, non-threatening things like pollen, dust, and mold trigger the same kind of symptoms our bodies experience when it really is sick (like sneezing, wheezing, coughing, being congested, and having to blow your nose).

This is a theory of allergies (and the allergic disease asthma) which is known (unsurprisingly) as the hygiene hypothesis.

It’s no slouch of a theory. It seems that there has been a notable rise in levels of allergies and asthma in the developed world. This appears not just to be an illusion created by greater reporting in recent years, for there is a lesser incidence of allergies in the Third World and in the rural areas of the developed world, where kids have more access to outside play in the dirt than in urban centers.

It’s not 100% certain that the hygiene hypothesis is true. The observed effect could be due to another cause. We’ll probably know in the next couple of decades.

In the meantime, you may want to let your small children run around outside and roll around in the dirt.

Unless they’re already addicted to indoor pursuits, that’s what their instincts are telling them to do.

LEARN MORE.