For as long as I’ve been interested in the search for proofs about the existence of God, I’ve been interested in drawing them. Words and equations just didn’t seem like enough; to wrap my head around what these constructs were expressing, and to try to communicate them to others, I had to make pictures. As I wrote my new book, God in Proof: The Story of a Search from the Ancients to the Internet, I was drawing every step of the way — and my publisher, University of California Press, let me stick some of my pictures in the text.

In doing, I soon discovered, I was retracing the history of proof itself. Long before the mathematical symbols and notation we generally use today, ancient proofs were drawn in diagrams and images.

Now that the book is finished, I want to share the fun I’ve been having by making these drawings with you. The press has agreed to pony up some free books for a drawing contest, and here’s how to win one: Draw a proof of something, divine or otherwise, and tweet a scan or photo of it to #GodInProof, along with any explanation you’d like to add. (You can also email them to [email protected].) Selected proofs will appear here, where they’ll be entered for a chance to win a free book. Entries with the highest number of social media shares win. Multiple submissions are allowed, but only one book is allowed per winning author.

Download the PDF version of the contest postcard here.

Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide, In the strife of Truth with Falsehood, for the good or evil side; Some great cause, God’s new Messiah, offering each the bloom or blight, Parts the goats upon the left hand, and the sheep upon the right, And the choice goes by forever ‘twixt that darkness and that light.

Those words seemed to capture what any revolution must be, especially when it remains just an idea: “Some great cause, God’s new Messiah.” It’s unimaginably gigantic, impossibly messianic. Yet somehow, there comes “the moment to decide,” despite “the bloom or blight” that might arise in the course of a movement, and its inevitable, incarnate shortcomings. One has no choice but to choose, for inaction also is a choice.

These were the lines I kept in my head while I attended the early planning meetings of what would become Occupy Wall Street—“Some great cause, God’s new Messiah” if there ever was one. What I experienced in those meetings is now the subject of my article in the February issue of Harper’s Magazine, “Some Assembly Required” (subscription necessary, or get it at your local newsstand). It follows the incipient movement from the third planning meeting until September 16, the night before the occupation began. Where it leaves off, my articles at Waging Nonviolence and?The Nation?pick up. (There was also one snippet about the planning at Killing the Buddha.)?The chance to do this Harper’s?story, though, was the opportunity I was really hoping for; something with the space and support to delve more deeply than I elsewhere could into “that darkness and that light” of a movement that has changed and is changing the world.

Today at The Immanent Frame, I interview Colin Jager, professor of English at Rutgers and an authority on natural theology in British romanticism. He’s the author of, literally, The Book of God. Our conversation touches on many things swirling through my mind in connection with the book I’m working on—design, debate, and the existence of God. Here’s a bit of the exchange with Jager:

NS: The design arguments for God’s existence that you address in The Book of God are typically treated by philosophers and the public as sheer abstractions, or even scientific hypotheses; why treat them instead as literary creations?

CJ: No one discipline owns the design argument and its critiques. Historically, the distinctions that people typically draw today among literature, philosophy, and theology just don’t hold up. Professional literary study, especially, has only been around for a hundred years or so. A thinker like David Hume, who is very important to the story I tell about design, did not think of himself as a philosopher but as man of letters: he wrote history, philosophy, and theology, and he served as a diplomatic secretary. This was a typical “literary” career. I try to restore some of that broad range to the topics I write about—though no diplomats have signed me up yet!

NS: What’s an example of how you, as a scholar of literature, can shed light on a philosophical debate?

CJ: In Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Philo, who is skeptical of design arguments, wins the battle, but Cleanthes, who supports them, wins the war. One thing Hume might be suggesting is that if you’re on Philo’s team, you’d best give up your belief that better arguments can win the day all on their own. Yes, the philosophical or conceptual idea of design seems rather abstract, but, at the same time, those arguments are lived and experienced by real people in real time. This is one thing Hume figured out—and it’s a literary point, if you want to put it that way: the rhetoric, the habits of mind, the practices of sociability that accompany what we could call the culture of design aren’t just window-dressing for some philosophical argument. Those things are the argument. That’s why the culture of design is easier to come at through literature rather than the history of philosophy—through practice rather than theory, if you will. We’ve misunderstood the way secularization works if we think that better arguments drive the discussion.

Sgt. Dougherty Park (map)
Brooklyn, New York
Saturday, July 24th, 2010
3-5 pm

The search for proof and disproof of the existence of God through history can tell us as much about the people doing the proving as about any particular deity. What do they mean by God? What counts as proof? In this class at the experimental outdoor School of the Future taught by KtB senior editor Nathan Schneider, we will be using pictures to explore questions like these for ourselves. First, the teacher will present (again, in pictures) some of the classic arguments used to prove or disprove God’s existence in the past. Then, students will have the chance to draw pictures of proofs of their own, and we will discuss them in an open-minded, non-judgmental fashion, together with historical anecdotes from the teacher’s research on the subject. Drawing materials will be provided. No belief or disbelief in God required, nor any particular skill at drawing.

RSVP on Facebook.

Hear, for instance, last week’s discussion hosted by Killing the Buddha, The Prison-Spirituality Complex. Also, in the current issue of Tricycle, I review a new book by one of the panelists at that event, Yale professor Caleb Smith. Since Tricycle is a Buddhist magazine, I took the opportunity, also, to interview and discuss Buddhists who are involved in prison work. (Unfortunately the review is available online only to subscribers. Buy it at your local Whole Foods!)

Solitude can be a vehicle for liberation, or it can tear a person apart; the American cult of reclusive individualism, after all, has given us wise men, intrepid pioneers, and mountaintop transcendentalists, but also desperate housewives and deranged unabombers. Caleb Smith, a professor of English at Yale, reveals in “The Prison and the American Imagination” that nowhere is this contraditction better and more brutally expressed than in our penal institutions.

Since the opening of Philadelphia’s Eastern State Penitentiary in 1829, the corrections business in this country has carried on a love affair with isolation. Though well after passing from the control of its Quaker founders, the city ensured its flagship prison was suffused with their theology of the Inner Light. Inmates lived alone in cells lit by a single skylight—the “eye of God”—where they ate, slept, worked at handicrafts, and waited. The intention was that a man would drift into reveries of meditation, coming face to face with himself and the divine spark within. Prison, said one of Eastern State’s founding documents, will “teach him how to think.” Reformist hopes also took on the transformative language of born-again evangelism. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, imagined that upon an ex-con’s release people would proclaim, “This brother was lost, and is found—was dead and is alive.”

My instinct is that, with religion so centrally a part of the birth of the American prison disaster, religion will somehow have to be part of the solution.

Sure, it’s nice, but I would have thought no more of it but for a message from my dear friend Thinker Bill Hackett, Santa Barbara?o extraordinaire. He began:

I was impressed with the Globe people who did that little illustration.

If you find, who created the jewel, I’d like to ask for that person’s interpretation of what the illustration illustrates!

I’d discuss what I see, but I don’t want to pollute anyone else’s thinking before they put their own clearly in mind. I know what I see and will save for maybe later.

May I ask what you see?

Then, maybe ask if you will ask the artist what he intended?

(Or, “what she intended” except that I am over 40. And the “he” included “her”.)

Also, note well, please: I would like to buy an autographed original.

Seriously. My limit though is probably like the price of a good lunch — maybe two at Farmer Boy? ($25?)

Never to let Thinker Bill down, I duly got in touch with my editor at the Globe, who replied,

The illustration was done by the Ideas section’s art director, Greg Klee: he literally composed it as he designed the page. He’s very good — although I suspect he would not have nearly as much to say about its meaning as your friend hopes…

Not an hour passed (59 minutes to be precise) before I heard from the aptly-named Mr. Klee himself:

My intent was to show one person is walking away from the churches and the ‘rest of society’ and to be perfectly happy doing so. Is that deep enough? I’d love to know what Mr. Hackett saw?

Upon sharing these remarks with the Thinker, he saw fit to rejoin:

Noting the article’s illustration (which I found to be a first class illustration for my taste and opinion (rare)), I focused the aging visual sensors of it and they sent to the old upstairs computer which then whirred and went to its answering via “What is this? What do I see?”

The initial report was highly favorable. Very highly. “Positive! Positive! Positive! Worth considering. Worth considering. Worth considering. ”

Clean lines. Happy. Cheerful. Clearly positive!

And WOW…all about “religion” and yet with no arguing.

======

Towers and spires and domes and churches, temples, mosques?

… and all of them seen as a worthy and positive!

Wow. Good stuff.

==

Undefined but apparently nice people (Nice people. You know — people just like me. [ No wonder I liked the portrayal. ]

But that was not the end of it. 23 minutes later, Hackett continued:

Just as the semanticist said. “The meaning is not in the word. The meaning is in the mind.”

The illustration’s meaning is not in the illustration. The meaning is in the mind.

“Truth and beauty are in the mind of the beholder….”

======

The Correct Vision of the Illustration

[ Note that I do not believe there is one “correct” vision. There are several, including the artist;s and yours and my own. ]

If you see the illustration as a charming positive, a whole crowd of people are heading toward their religion to get the spiritual lift and to enjoy the togetherness they anticipate from visiting their house of worship.

My vision? All very positive.

And this is topped off with a charming illustrated note that rings like crystal: One man is especially cheerful. Alive and well, he has already experienced his visit to his house of the spirit and is now so happy inside that he is called to whistle his pleasure.

And then, nearly six hours later!

Yeah! Publicity! Fame and fortuoon (sic) await! I very much liked the little illustration. Quite seriously think quite highly of it.

Do you see several interpretations? Example: The unchurched happy character doesn’t need all that stuff. The nonconformist may be either an early churchgoer should got happy ahead of the rush or perhaps a follower of some guru who believes God is best known by whistling on the streets?
==

As friend Vernon Johnson once said of real estate “deals”, so with churches and temples and mosques, and all… “Any deal’s a good deal if you look at it long enough.”

And, while on the general subject, everyone is roaring and rioting, hollering, ( and writing.) over the definition of the three-letter word.
==

Vastness over to you.

And finally, the next moring, the gentleman made a most appealing proposal (by “The Center” he means none other, of course, than The Center for the Study of Social Structures):

[ Between you and Mr, Klee cooperating in creating museum-quality, 100% response-drawing First Class letter mailings, The Center should garner at least one donor’s interest and support. Shucks, one billion is all we need.

And, you and Mr. Klee may thence enjoy Open Residence Fellowships with the Center in sunny Santa Barbara-by-the-Sea, with airline passes (for two, each, of course) good anytime you want and a well-stocked Center Guest Quarters (Maybe just at San Ysidro Ranch or the Biltmore? ]

As ever, let us heed Thinker Bill Hackett in his reminder (he is always giving such reminders) to look harder and give glory to the good things.

If this article accomplishes anything, it should be to get past the two kinds of commentary about Yahya that one normally sees in the West: a superficial overview with quotations from “both sides” and a triumphalistic put-down piece. Let me know if I’ve succeeded. Read it here.

The difference between the two is a haunting reminder that, by 2003, the U.S. military had exorcised the lessons of Vietnam from its memory, paving the way for Abu Ghraib and so much else.

Both versions are on Wikipedia, at least right now. Or else look at the dramatic animated versions on the Army website, here and here. You see it is pretty clear from the visuals which one they consider more important nowadays.

Here is the first, evoking the responsibility and honor that our country expects from its people in uniform:

I am an American Soldier.
I am a member of the United States Army—a protector of the greatest nation on earth.
Because I am proud of the uniform I wear, I will always act in ways creditable to the military service and the nation it is sworn to guard.

I am proud of my own organization. I will do all I can to make it the finest unit in the Army.
I will be loyal to those under whom I serve. I will do my full part to carry out orders and instructions given to me or my unit.

As a soldier, I realize that I am a member of a time-honored profession—that I am doing my share to keep alive the principles of freedom for which my country stands.
No matter what the situation I am in, I will never do anything, for pleasure, profit, or personal safety, which will disgrace my uniform, my unit, or my country.
I will use every means I have, even beyond the line of duty, to restrain my Army comrades from actions disgraceful to themselves and to the uniform.

I am proud of my country and its flag.
I will try to make the people of this nation proud of the service I represent, for I am an American Soldier.

And then, the 2003 Warrior Ethos. The difference is stark. It seems custom-built for John McCain’s insistence on the terms of victory and defeat rather than any subtler option. Destruction is held above honor.

I am an American Soldier.
I am a Warrior and a member of a team. I serve the people of the United States, and live the Army Values.
I will always place the mission first.
I will never accept defeat.
I will never quit.
I will never leave a fallen comrade.
I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained and proficient in my warrior tasks and drills.
I always maintain my arms, my equipment and myself.
I am an expert and I am a professional.
I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy, the enemies of the United States of America in close combat.
I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.
I am an American Soldier.

According to Wikipedia, “Some soldiers shout ‘hooah’ at the conclusion.” Doesn’t this feel like a mistake?

He has cystic fibrosis, and he needs about $70,000/year in medicine to survive. He has also devoted his life to the unlucrative work of independent journalism and political activism. He lives on almost nothing and has a place to sleep only thanks to a generous arrangement with a generous church. While he contributes more to society than the average millionare, our system seems on the brink of deciding that he doesn’t deserve to live. Just another of the millions of stories about how utterly broken the American health care system has become.

Today in The New York Times, Paul Krugman makes clear how dangerous John McCain’s health care plan is. But in its fundamentals, I’m concerned that Barack Obama’s plan, as well as his general approach to labor, is dangerous too. Neither reflects the needs of a twenty-first century citizenry and workforce.

I’m 24 years old, and my grandfather in his mid-eighties doesn’t quite understand what’s taking me so long. By my age, he was married, and he had a job at RCA that could’ve lasted him a lifetime. All told, after college he couldn’t have had more than five serious jobs, and most of his life he had only one. I have had five jobs in the past year.

Today, fewer and fewer of us devote our lives to a single company. We change careers, get laid off, work as consultants, go back to school, and repeat. And for good reason. The world isn’t like it used to be. American industries compete in a global marketplace, and they have to be agile in order to keep up. No matter what the Democrats promise the big old unions, jobs are going to keep going overseas. If they don’t, consumer prices will go through the roof. Though Obama recognizes the demands of the market, he has not been willing enough—as willing as McCain has been, even—to tell American workers that they will need to be willing to retrain and retool if they want to stay competitive. This could be the mother of many false promises to come, meant to assuage the Democrats’ labor union base.

Currently, employers receive significant tax incentives for providing health benefits to their employees. And insurance providers can give much lower rates to people through corporate plans. Consequently, the health insurance regime is structured around employers and employees. However, in the new world order, this approach is dangerous and out of date. It leaves out a growing class of workers—freelancers, independent contractors, and of course those employed by companies that don’t offer benefits. Forget it if you actually pursue the American dream and start a small business. My father, who co-owns one of the last remaining small real estate firms in the Washington, D.C. area, has to buy health insurance as an individual.

Anyone who’s tried that knows how expensive it is. I would have had to go that route, if I hadn’t been lucky enough to find the Freelancers Union. In New York City, the same Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan went from around $800/month to around $200/month when I joined up with them. No background checks on health history. Some annoying paperwork to be sure, but I’m in.

For my friend losing his Medicaid, there’s no affordable alternative in sight.

I hope that the Freelancers Union represents a new kind of worker’s organization that spreads very, very quickly. You’re not just a member by virtue of having a certain job. And isn’t the organization’s primary objective to keep you from being laid off, whether your job is competitive or not. Instead, they support you wherever you’re working, providing insurance as well as a training seminars, political advocacy, and a community to network with. Almost like a church or a Masonic lodge. A new, yet old way of organizing workers.

In the current political climate, where a European-style single-payer system isn’t in the cards, such organizations are a plausible alternative. They still leave room for the competition that the free-market folks think will prevent the inefficiencies of a single-payer model. Because employees are not so dependent on companies for basic needs, both are freer to maximize utility in the marketplace.

Fortunately, Obama’s health plan features a government-run program that allows people to buy affordable insurance as individuals. This is a vital step in the right direction. But if he is serious about both a humane health insurance market and a competitive labor market, he has to go farther to detach benefits from jobs and create tax incentives for organizations that stay with people in both good times and bad. Vital services like health care need to go to people qua people, not just insofar as they also happen to employees.

Ironically, we should listen to the stumbling McCain did after being caught saying that “the fundamentals of the economy are strong” a week before the financial system collapsed. The fundamentals of the economy, he claimed, are not corporations or markets, but people:

“The economic crisis is not the fault of the American people. Our workers are the most innovative, the hardest working, the best skilled, most productive, most competitive in the world, that’s the American worker.”

It may be jingoistic stump-talk, but it’s talk worth trying to live up to.

Though I am firmly part of the large swath of my generation that has decided to blatantly ignore the fact that there is a war on, this question of a society worth defending strikes me as a moving one. All too often, I think, we approach the matter tautologically—thinking that by fighting (bravely, victoriously, etc.) we automatically become a society worth fighting for. This is one of the great fallacies of Iraq, a war fought for freedom that has made us less free. If we built a society truly worth defending, I betcha we’d have a lot fewer enemies to defend against.