In yesterday’s daily article, R.R. Reno describes Simon Critchley’s treatment of death as typically postmodern posturing. It projects a “self-congratulating honesty that protests against old hypocrisies and evasions—all in close conjunction with a winking lack of seriousness that insulates us from any real engagement or commitment.”

Novelist Julian Barnes’s attitude towards death makes for an interesting contrast. The Washington Post’s review of his memoir, Nothing to be Frightened Of, quotes him as saying that he “periodically finds himself bolting upright from sleep screaming, ‘No, no, no.’” Not much postmodern insulation there.

Barnes is an agnostic (which, as the title slyly indicates, in his case amounts to practical atheism) but he admits to envying believers and has a wholesome distaste for what human life becomes without hope of heaven:

Bumper stickers and fridge magnets remind us that Life Is Not a Rehearsal. We encourage one another towards the secular modern heaven of self-fulfillment: the development of the personality, the relationships which help define us, the status-giving job, the material goods, the ownership of property, the foreign holidays, the acquisition of savings, the accumulation of sexual exploits, the visits to the gym, the consumption of culture. It all adds up to happiness, doesn’t it–doesn’t it? This is our chosen myth, and almost as much of a delusion as the myth that insisted on fulfillment and rapture when the last trump sounded and the graves were flung open, when the healed and perfected souls joined in the community of saints and angels. But if life is viewed as a rehearsal, or a preparation, or an anteroom, or whichever metaphor we choose, but at any rate as something contingent, something dependent on a greater reality elsewhere, then it becomes at the same time less valuable and more serious. Those parts of the world where religion has drained away and there is a general acknowledgment that this short stretch of time is all we have, are not, on the whole, more serious places than those where heads are still jerked by the cathedral’s bell or the minaret’s muezzin. On the whole, they yield to a frenetic materialism; although the ingenious human animal is well capable of constructing civilizations where religion coexists with frenetic materialism (where the former might even be an emetic consequence of the latter): witness America.

In the end, the reviewer suggests, Barnes’ own answer to death appears to be Epicurean: “Work hard at what you care about and enjoy moderate pleasures.” This is not, I think, ultimately an effective strategy for coping with the elemental terror of extinction. But it has great pedigree and a believer can respect it.

This past August, the world watched Michael Phelps become the greatest Olympian of all time, securing for himself eight gold medals and a place in the record books for most all-time gold medals and most gold medals in a single Olympics. It appears, however, that Phelps is not content with mere athletic accomplishments:

Michael Phelps will use the $1 million bonus he earned for winning eight Olympic gold medals in Beijing to start a foundation, the American swimmer said on Tuesday.

The first initiative by the Michael Phelps Foundation will be an eight-city tour across the United States during which Phelps will discuss his Olympic experiences with children.

“Thanks to a lot of hard work, some good fortune, the inspiration I drew from so many supporters around the world, and incredible team mates, I was able to achieve that dream by winning eight gold medals in Beijing,” Phelps said in a statement.

“Now, my goals reach beyond the pool, to helping others realize their dreams, and continuing to grow the sport I love so much.”

The money is reported to go towards the general advancement of swimming sports for kids, and we have yet to see exactly where the dollars are going to that end. But it’s refreshing, to say the least, to see such an amazing athlete respond to his success with gratitude and good deeds, in an age where overpaid athletes tend to build up their egos as much as their physiques.

Mark Shea does a nice job showing the left’s visceral hatred and fear of everything Sarah Palin stands for. It’s not what she thinks, but who she is. I noted this the other night at a barbecue with a friend from college and some of the folks she’d met in her year in New York. When the conversation turned to politics, Sarah Palin was touted as a “pro-life Nazi,” a hater of gay people, and a woman who took her eight-year-old daughter caribou hunting and then had the audacity to take a picture with her next to their kill.

But wait a minute, I thought, we’re sitting here eating lamb-and-turkey-burgers. Surely there’s nothing wrong with going hunting, and one less caribou isn’t going to do any harm. And shouldn’t the fact that it’s a mother and a daughter hunting make it all the better? Would the two young women before me rather have her staying home teaching docility and baking?

The strength of the hate I saw made an impression on me. Because it seems that many like the women I spoke with ultimately want two kinds of women in the world: women who are strong on their terms or women who are weak, but can be made strong on their terms.

But Sarah Palin is neither. Many American women are neither as well. Their world does not fit conveniently into the conventional feminist narrative. Betsy Fox-Genovese didn’t write “Feminism Is Not the Story of My Life“ for nothing. What are these inexplicable women supposed to do?

My hope is that they make themselves heard, that the America–men and women–who can relate more to Sarah Palin than Maureen Dowd will show that they are not to be dismissed as a bunch of backward hicks and pro-life Nazis. And that afterward they offer their opponents a friendly invitation to go caribou hunting.

Who says the animosity of the Culture Wars has made it impossible for us to find common ground? As “Diogenes” at Catholic World News observes, publications like the New York Times and the Boston Globe have lately become intensely worried about teenage pregnancy and even nervous about the challenges of balancing motherhood and career.

I was surfing the television a few nights ago and came across something on EWTN that really irked me. It was an embarrassingly stupid show called “I was a Teenage Darwinist.” It featured some mountebank striding up and down in front of an audience, wisecracking and sneering at Darwinism and evolution. His method was to set up straw men and knock them down with silly remarks laced with cornpone humor.

In the fifteen minutes that I could bear to watch him, he also discussed Copernicus and Galileo in completely misleading terms that suggested that he had only the loosest understanding of what he was talking about. It was obvious that the guy was no kind of scientist. And, indeed, when I looked him up on the internet I found that he is a lawyer. Obviously the kind that gives lawyers a bad name.

What in the name of all that is holy was this tripe doing on one of my favorite television channels?

The sad fact is that EWTN is just not serious enough about science. There are some bright spots. One bright spot is Fr. Robert Spitzer, president of Gonzaga University, who, though not a scientist, discusses science in a knowledgeable and illuminating way. Another is Fr. Tad Pacholczyk, who is a biologist of impressive credentials. But they are the exceptions.

It is rare to see on EWTN research scientists of international reputation. And that is not because there aren’t any good Catholics who fit that description. Just among my friends and acquaintances in my own field and closely related fields of research—theoretical particle physics, cosmology, and astrophysics—I know well over a dozen accomplished scientists who are devout and orthodox Catholics, completely loyal to magisterium across the board. I am talking about people with Ph.D.s from Ivy League schools and impressive research records. I am talking about people who also watch EWTN, read journals such as First Things, and belong to such organizations as Opus Dei and the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars.

In fact, just in the last few years I have become aware that there are considerably more believing and practicing Catholics in my field than I had imagined. (Admittedly, still only a small percentage of the total number of scientists in these fields.) And most of them are relatively young. In June, I went to a particle-physics conference in Seoul, South Korea, and there I ran into three young Catholic theoretical physicists I hadn’t known of before (as Catholics, that is), and learned from them of a fourth.

Not all these people would necessarily want to appear on EWTN as guests—some of them don’t have tenure yet, and some may be too shy. But they could act as consultants for EWTN. The next time someone suggests to EWTN that they air drivel like “I Was a Teenage Darwinist,” they could check with their scientific consultants first.

I think that many people have gotten the false impression that religion, let alone theological orthodoxy, has few if any friends in the world of science. This leads them to adopt an overly defensive stance toward science, which sometimes erupts into pre-emptive attacks on it. Films such as “I Was a Teenage Darwinist” reflect fear and hostility to science. That is not the way to go. In the long run it will be ruinous to the Church. It will drive a wedge between the worlds of faith and science. Bright young people will feel that they have to choose one or the other. But they don’t: There are many bright young people who live happily in both worlds.

Has everyone read “A Vote for Sarah Palin,” the Daily Article here at First Things this morning? I’m not sure what to make of the nomination and would be interested in your thoughts. Email us here.

Discovery News reports that the Hubble Space Telescope has captured images of a collision between two distant galaxy clusters. The crash occurred at such a high rate of speed that dark matter could actually be seen separating from ordinary matter:

The images taken by the Hubble Space Telescope and Chandra X-ray Observatory show a clear separation between dark and ordinary matter during the clash 5.7 billion light-years from Earth, the U.S. space agency said Wednesday.

The astronomers were able to differentiate between the two substances with a technique known as gravitational lensing in which dark matter appears in blue in the image while ordinary matter, which is mostly in the form of hot gas, looks pink.

As the two clusters merged at speeds of millions of miles per hour, the hot gas in each cluster collided and slowed down, the astronomers said. The dark matter, however, did not.

5.7 billion light-years from Earth, in a galaxy far, far away, two worlds collide. It’s as if the universe were trying to write it’s own Hollywood blockbuster.

The 2008 Republican Platform was released by the RNC earlier this week, and it’s well worth skimming alongside the Democratic Platform for Change. Following are a few highlights on the life issues.

“Maintaining The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life,” one section is titled in the GOP platform, highlighted by the assertion that “at its core, abortion is a fundamental assault on the sanctity of innocent human life. Women deserve better than abortion. Every effort should be made to work with women considering abortion to enable and empower them to choose life.” The platform elaborates:

Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity and dignity of innocent human life.

We have made progress. The Supreme Court has upheld prohibitions against the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. States are now permitted to extend health-care coverage to children before birth. And the Born Alive Infants Protection Act has become law; this law ensures that infants who are born alive during an abortion receive all treatment and care that is provided to all newborn infants and are not neglected and left to die. We must protect girls from exploitation and statutory rape through a parental notification requirement. We all have a moral obligation to assist, not to penalize, women struggling with the challenges of an unplanned pregnancy. At its core, abortion is a fundamental assault on the sanctity of innocent human life. Women deserve better than abortion. Every effort should be made to work with women considering abortion to enable and empower them to choose life. We salute those who provide them alternatives, including pregnancy care centers, and we take pride in the tremendous increase in adoptions that has followed Republican legislative initiatives.

Respect for life requires efforts to include persons with disabilities in education, employment, the justice system, and civic participation. In keeping with that commitment, we oppose the nonconsensual withholding of care or treatment from people with disabilities, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide, which endanger especially those on the margins of society.

The Democratic platform addresses beginning-of-life concerns in a rather brief section entitled “Choice”:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to comprehensive affordable family planning services and age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions.

The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.

That many children are unplanned and unwanted is tragic and undeniable–Who but the most bitter pessimist or cynic doesn’t want change for a better tomorrow? I am reminded of something I recently read by Edmund Burke, about the inevitably dynamic nature of society and humanity: “We must all obey the great law of change. It is the most powerful law off nature.” Of course, as Burke well knew, change can help or it can harm; we can choose good or we can choose bad. What we choose and how we change decides if tomorrow will be better.

Those who are wondering about the state of our long-time contributor Avery Cardinal Dulles might enjoy this update on his 90th birthday party from Rocco Palmo at Whispers in the Loggia. The upshot is that the cardinal is greatly incapacitated, so please keep him in your prayers.