Mother Teresa

[WellSpyder]

Yes, those things are more important to me than the survival of the human species. But I don't want it to end while I am still alive!

Don't worry - it won't!

[Vampyr]

I am personally a bit sceptical about evolutionary explanations of religion. As I see it there are a number of phenomena in need of explanation:

 

- The obsession with speculating about causes and origins. This drives science as well as religion.

 

This "obsession" kept us alive. You don't hear a sound in the undergrowth making some guesses as to what it is and live to tell about it. There is a great deal of evolutionary pressure to speculate about origins. So it is natural to come up with a reason for the things we lack the knowledge to explain.

[nige1]

The book is not a biography. Why do you think MT's mission was to alleviate suffering? I feel that I am being very generous when I say that her mission was to watch the suffering of others.

I hope you are mistaken about Mother Teresa's mission. I think her mission was to alleviate suffering because she said so and observers (almost all observers?) seem to confirm that she succeeded.

Please tell me you are being sarcastic

Do you mean when I wrote that...

• "Tying children is distasteful?" I realize that physical restraint is still widely used (see Medical restraint). I suppose it may be necessary in a few cases but I doubt that it's always necessary when it is used.
• "Willingness to act on positive criticism is a healthy sign?" Well, Sister Nirmala said she welcomed positive criticism. I don't know if she really welcomed it but I think it's likely that she would act on it.

[Vampyr]

I hope you are mistaken about Mother Teresa's mission. I think it was was to alleviate suffering because she said so and observers (almost all observers?) seem to confirm that she succeeded.

 

I do not think that MT ever said that her mission was to alleviate suffering, and I don't know of any observer who said that she did so.

 

Do you mean when I wrote that...

• Tying children is distasteful? I realize that physical restraint is still widely used (see Medical restraint). I suppose it may be necessary in a few cases but I doubt that it is always necessary when it is used OR
• Willingness to act on positive criticism is a healthy sign? Well, Sister Nirmala said she welcomed positive criticism. I don't know if she really welcomed it but I think it's likely that she would act on it.

 

LOL they tie children to beds (and denied them toys until a couple of years after MT's death). BUT they claim that they welcome criticism so that makes it all right; plus you "think it's likely" that they would act on it. Seriously, are you that naive? In any case I wonder how many times they did receive criticism about, say, tying children to beds.

 

I don't know why you so fervently desire to be an apologist for MT. You don't have any skin in the game, do you?

 

Perhaps the letter MT received after she requested leniency for Charles Keating will amuse you.

[Vampyr]

Alleviate suffering? In this article you will find some of MT's words on suffering.

[nige1]

Alleviate suffering? In this article you will find some of MT's words on suffering.

Thank you. I found

"The most beautiful gift for a person is that he can participate in the suffering of Christ," said Mother Teresa. Once she had tried to comfort a screaming sufferer, "You are suffering, that means Jesus is kissing you." The sufferer screamed back, furious, "Then tell your Jesus to stop kissing me."

I also found

"...to care for the hungry, the naked, the homeless, the crippled, the blind, the lepers, all those people who feel unwanted, unloved, uncared for throughout society, people that have become a burden to the society and are shunned by everyone."

[nige1]

I do not think that MT ever said that her mission was to alleviate suffering, and I don't know of any observer who said that she did so. LOL they tie children to beds (and denied them toys until a couple of years after MT's death). BUT they claim that they welcome criticism so that makes it all right; plus you "think it's likely" that they would act on it. Seriously, are you that naive? In any case I wonder how many times they did receive criticism about, say, tying children to beds.

I don't know why you so fervently desire to be an apologist for MT. You don't have any skin in the game, do you?

I want to learn and I enjoy argument. I gave Mother Teresa little thought until I read Vampyr's damning assessment. Why does Vampyr find her interesting? I haven't completely made up my mind about her but I'm concerned that a lot of the "evidence" for and against her is apocryphal.

Perhaps the letter MT received after she requested leniency for Charles Keating will amuse you.

I think Mother Teresa was politically naive. For example, Hitchens says she was friendly with the Reagans, when the US president was funding, arming, and training the contras. Apparently, the contras were "freedom fighters" who killed nuns (among other atrocities) during their fight against Nicaraguan democracy. I don't believe that she was aware of this background (although, arguably, as a historian, she should have been aware of US proclivities in South America). It might, however, have been hard for her to find any financier or political leader of unblemished character :(

[mikeh]

Quoted from "Do you have an LA" in "Simple Rulings": I know little about Mother Teresa but Vampyr's view worries me. Comments?

Hmmmm......seems to me somewhat weird that anyone, not connected to the Vatican efforts to sanctify her, would be 'worried' about the criticism.

 

However, it is ever weirder for that person, confronted in detail with the reasons for the criticism of those efforts, and clear evidence of the pathological attachment to suffering (in others) held by MT, to continue to spout the hagiographic nonsense written about her in her lifetime or thereafter.

 

She demonstrably wanted those in her care to suffer. She demonstrably allowed, and by inference probably required, inhumane treatment of children. She created false images of her work for visiting dignitaries. She actively opposed divorce, thus condemning many people to choose to live in awful relationships or risk rejection by their community, she opposed contraception, thus promoting overpopulation, and the very social conditions that gave rise the suffering on which she seems to have fed, and she lent her reputation and standing in the world to some very bad people, and don't tell me that she can be excused because she was 'naive'. By the time the Vatican had come on board, she would have had a lot of advisors getting her involved in various things. Remember, there is good reason to suspect the RC church of complicity in organized crime during the relevant time...see the Vatican Bank stories for a starter. Read the history of the church and its attitude towards earthly wealth and power for a followup.

 

I don't know what your agenda was in starting this thread, nige1, but I suspect that you didn't expect the wholesale condemnation of this person whose image you clearly wanted to see preserved as it appeared in your mind, and apparently still does. You'd rather cling to your illusions than accept reality. Well, as a person of faith, you have a natural inclination that way, I suppose :P

 

Btw, don't claim that is ad hominem. You make it clear that you see possession of faith as a valid approach to life. Billions of humans do...you are part of the majority. You don't get to cling to faith and then claim that being described as such is a personal attack.

 

If it makes you happier in life, and causes no harm to others, more power to you. Me, I don't think I could live that way...far too impoverished a view of life for me, thanks. I like my reality to be evidence-based.

[Winstonm]

Heh. Which other body part could possibly be responsible?

 

I am personally a bit sceptical about evolutionary explanations of religion. As I see it there are a number of phenomena in need of explanation:

 

- The obsession with speculating about causes and origins. This drives science as well as religion.

 

- Spiritual experience. Probably I am a bit naive about this but to me it looks like random imperfection of the brain.

 

- worshipping. You can worship a football team. It may be interesting to discuss if we have a worshipping instinct or not. My guess would be yes. Anyway, the link between worshipping and belief is probably something for a sociologist to think of rather than a biologist.

 

The meme theory is interesting but again it is not specifically about religion.

 

I wonder if worship isn't induced by the same hierarchy structure found in pack animals, such as dogs. Perhaps in worship we are seeking the alpha dog?

[Vampyr]

I think Mother Teresa was politically naive.

 

It is pretty clear that she was anything but. And she certainly knew how to manipulate the media and trade on her reputation. Don't forget that she came from a wealthy family and received a good education. She was not a babe in the woods. And don't forget that when she herself was ill she sought the best in medical care. So the suffering she loved was not her own. Does this not suggest a certain worldly cynicism?

 

And as to the quote you found, please keep in mind that the Mission of Charity say is by no means necessarily what they do. The writings that I and others have provided are based on facts, not words.

[nige1]

It is pretty clear that she was anything but. And she certainly knew how to manipulate the media and trade on her reputation. Don't forget that she came from a wealthy family and received a good education. She was not a babe in the woods. And don't forget that when she herself was ill she sought the best in medical care. So the suffering she loved was not her own. Does this not suggest a certain worldly cynicism?

I'm unsure.

And as to the quote you found, please keep in mind that the Mission of Charity say is by no means necessarily what they do. The writings that I and others have provided are based on facts, not words.

According to Wikepedia, the Missionaries of Charity translate their words into action; and some critical "facts" are disputable

Remarks made by Dr. Robin Fox relative to the lack of full-time medically-trained personnel and the absence of strong analgesics were published in a brief memoir in an issue of The Lancet in 1994. These remarks were criticised in a later issue of The Lancet on the ground that they failed to take account of Indian conditions, specifically the fact that government regulations effectively precluded the use of morphine outside large hospitals. A British former volunteer at the Home objected that syringes were rinsed in cold water and reused; that inmates were given cold baths; and that aspirin was administered to people with terminal cancer. Fox made no reference to any of these practices, but noted that the inmates were "eating heartily and doing well", and that the sisters and volunteers focused on cleanliness, tending wounds and sores, and providing loving kindness.

It's hard to know whom to believe :(

[Vampyr]

OK, Nigel, admire MT if you want. It is your right.

 

Anyway in the Wikipedia article the two concrete things mentioned were schools and soup kitchens. The latter were, according to a first-hand account, run by volunteers with little participation from the actual sisters. The article even specifies that the schools are run by volunteers. Also the article is in Wikipedia, and appears to contain little first-hand reports, but seems largely to consist of information probably published by the order itself.

[kenberg]

The Wikipedia article really is about all I know of this. I found the article reasonably balanced and informative.

 

I quote a section:

 

After Mother Teresa's death in 1997, the Holy See began the process of beatification, the third step toward possible canonisation. This process requires the documentation of a miracle performed from the intercession of Mother Teresa.^[120]

 

In 2002, the Vatican recognised as a miracle the healing of a tumor in the abdomen of an Indian woman, Monica Besra, after the application of a locket containing Mother Teresa's picture. Besra said that a beam of light emanated from the picture, curing the cancerous tumor. Critics—including some of Besra's medical staff and, initially, Besra's husband—said that conventional medical treatment had eradicated the tumor.^[121] Dr. Ranjan Mustafi, who told The New York Times he had treated Besra, said that the cyst was not cancer at all but a cyst caused by tuberculosis. He said, "It was not a miracle.... She took medicines for nine months to one year."^[122] According to Besra's husband, "My wife was cured by the doctors and not by any miracle."^[123]

 

An opposing perspective of the claim is that Besra's medical records contain sonograms, prescriptions, and physicians' notes that could prove whether the cure was a miracle or not. Besra has claimed that Sister Betta of the Missionaries of Charity is holding them. Time magazine received a "no comments" statement from Sister Betta. The officials at the Balurghat Hospital where Besra was seeking medical treatment have claimed that they are being pressured by the Catholic order to declare the cure a miracle.^[123]

 

 

 

 

The church says it is a miracle, the husband said it was the doctors and the medicine. And maybe a little luck. Here is a story from forty years or so ago.

 

 

 

 

The male half of a marriage was around 80. He had always been vigorous, continuing in gardening and other activities, and then something changed. very rapid, you could almost see his health changing from hour to hour. He was admitted to the hospital and my wife of that time and I went to visit. He sent his wife and my wife out of the room and i thought "oh my god, he is going to ask me if he is dying". Indeed I thought that he was but I made a quick decision that my response would be "I don't know". For whatever the reason, most likely he just thought it unfair to ask me, he did not. And my quick decision would have been the right one. He stabilized and got a bit better. He lived another ten years or so, and he lived reasonably well. Not his previous vigorous self, but he could get up and down stairs on his own as long as he took his time.

 

 

A miracle? I should apply for beatification? I have been surprised often enough so that if I wanted to make the case for miracles, I have plenty to choose from. But then there are those other cases where a guy got sick and he died, as expected. Miracle here, no miracle there, I just don't think that way and really having a bunch of old men sitting around a table voting on such a thing strikes me as seriously weird.

 

 

[nige1]

OK, Nigel, admire MT if you want. It is your right. Anyway in the Wikipedia article the two concrete things mentioned were schools and soup kitchens. The latter were, according to a first-hand account, run by volunteers with little participation from the actual sisters. The article even specifies that the schools are run by volunteers. Also the article is in Wikipedia, and appears to contain little first-hand reports, but seems largely to consist of information probably published by the order itself.

Thanks vampyr. I still think Mother Teresa was a good person in spite of criticisms such as ...

• Background. Religious views (abortion etc) Guardian article: Search for Sins of Saint of the Gutters (1999) by Suzanne Goldenberg. Wiikipedia article Criticism of Mother Teresa.
• Money-raising -- hobnobbing with Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Jean Claude "Baby Doc" Duvallier, Robert Maxwell, Charles Keating. Mother Teresa wrote a letter letter supporting Keating. The Depute District Attorney, Paui Turley's reply,
• Hoarding contributions. Ex-nun's Free Enquiry Magazine article: Mother Teresa's House of Illusions (1998) by Susan Stebbing
• Covert Baptisms.

  For Mother, it was the spiritual well-being of the poor that mattered most. Material aid was a means of reaching their souls, of showing the poor that God loved them. In the homes for the dying, Mother taught the sisters how to secretly baptise those who were dying. Sisters were to ask each person in danger of death if he wanted a 'ticket to heaven'. An affirmative reply was to mean consent to baptism. The sister was then to pretend she was just cooling the person's forehead with a wet cloth, while in fact she was baptising him, saying quietly the necessary words. Secrecy was important so that it would not come to be known that Mother Teresa's sisters were baptising Hindus and Moslems.

• Misusing ambulances. in Mother of all Myths (1998)

  Her failure to provide vehicles (whilst continually claiming to do so) is even more significant because she had been donated a number of ambulance vehicles. These are used mainly (though not solely) as vans to ferry nuns, often to and from places of prayer.

• Elevator controversy. Fight City Hall by New York Times 1990
• Conditions. Christoper Hitichins quotes

  My initial impression was of all the photographs and footage I've ever seen of Belsen and places like that, because all the patients had shaved heads. No chairs anywhere, there were just these stretcher beds. They're like First World War stretcher beds. There's no garden, no yard even. No nothing. And I thought what is this? This is two rooms with fifty to sixty men in one, fifty to sixty women in another. They're dying. They're not being given a great deal of medical care. They're not being given painkillers really beyond aspirin and maybe if you're lucky some Brufen or something, for the sort of pain that goes with terminal cancer and the things they were dying of ...'They didn't have enough drips. The needles they used and re-used over and over and over and you would see some of the nuns rinsing needles under the cold water tap. And I asked one of the why she was doing it and she said: 'Well to clean it.' And I said, 'Yes, but why are you not sterilising it; why are you not boiling water and sterilising your needles?' She said: 'There's no point. There's no time.''... [a boy of fifteen who was dying] had a really relatively simple kidney complaint that had simply got worse and worse and worse because he hadn't had antibiotics. And he actually needed an operation. ... [The American doctor looking after him said...] 'they won't take him to hospital.' And I said: 'Why? All you have to do is get a cab. Take him to the nearest hospital, demand that he has treatment. Get him an operation.' She said: 'They don't do it. They won't do it. If they do it for one, they do it for everybody.' And I thought - but this kid is fifteen.

• Medical care. In Mother Theresa's care for the dying (1994),

  What sort of medical care do they get? It is haphazard. There are doctors who call in from time to time but usually the sisters and volunteers (some of whom have medical knowledge) make decisions as best they can. I saw a young man who had been admitted in poor shape with high fever, and the drugs prescribed had been tetracycline and paracetamol. Later, a visiting doctor diagnosed probable malaria and substituted chloroquine. Could not someone have looked at a blood film? Investigations, I was told, are seldom permissible. How about simple algorithms that might help the sisters and volunteers distinguish the curable from the incurable? Again no. Systematic approaches are alien to the ethos of the home. Mother Theresa prefers providence to planning; her rules are designed to prevent any drift towards materialism; the sisters must remain on equal terms with the poor. So the most important features of the regimen are cleanliness, the tending of wounds and sores, and loving kindness. On a short visit I could not judge the power of their spiritual approach, but I was disturbed to learn that the formulary includes no strong analgesics. Along with the neglect of diagnosis, the lack of good analgesia marks Mother Teresa's approach as clearly separate from the hospice movement. I know which I prefer

  .

[Vampyr]

Thanks vampyr. I still think Mother Teresa was a good person in spite of criticisms such as ...

 

Well, she must secretly have done a lot of good to come out positive on the balance sheet despite all of that.

[Winstonm]

This seems to be the determinate argument of many "people of faith":

 

Quoting William Lane Craig, Ph.D.,

…the way we know Christianity to be true is by the self-authenticating witness of God’s Holy Spirit. Now what do I mean by that? I mean that the experience of the Holy Spirit is… unmistakable… for him who has it; …that arguments and evidence incompatible with that truth are overwhelmed by the experience of the Holy Spirit…1

…it is the self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit that gives us the fundamental knowledge of Christianity’s truth. Therefore, the only role left for argument and evidence to play is a subsidiary role… The magisterial use of reason occurs when reason stands over and above the gospel… and judges it on the basis of argument and evidence. The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to and serves the gospel. In light of the Spirit’s witness, only the ministerial use of reason is legitimate. Philosophy is rightly the handmaid of theology. Reason is a tool to help us better understand and defend our faith…2

[The inner witness of the Spirit] trumps all other evidence.3

 

Evidence is secondary to belief, so how can MT ever be bad unless the Church deems her so?

[nige1]

This seems to be the determinate argument of many "people of faith"

Evidence is secondary to belief

This whole thread seems to confirm that statement :)

[Vampyr]

This whole thread seems to confirm that statement :)

Not the whole thread. Most of the contributors are reliant on evidence.

[mike777]

Based on evidence

 

1) Painkillers a big problem for MT to use

2) owning/running/ maintain an ambulance service a huge problem for MT to use

 

 

With all of the above this threads main points about MT deserve more discussion by the Church

 

However many points complain that MT was Catholic s Catholic nun.

[Trinidad]

Well, she must secretly have done a lot of good to come out positive on the balance sheet despite all of that.

That depends on your definition of "good":

 

You (and I) may not share the believes and morals of Mother Theresa. But there are millions of people who do.

 

If we want to spread our moral values universally, without giving these millions of people room for their views (no matter how silly we think they are) then we are no better than the moslim extremists in Syria and Iraq.

 

... Except, of course, that we know that we are right and they are wrong. But they think exactly the same... so that doesn't get us any further.

 

So, if you want to judge whether Mother Theresa was a good person, the only thing you can do is look at her own morals and believe system:

 

1) Are these morals widely accepted as good?

Whether we like it or not, the morals of Mother Theresa are commonly seen in the world as good, including her views on abortion, anticonception, divorce, etc. That is even true for her views on suffering. You cannot seriously maintain the position that her views are abnormal... Our views are abnormal. (Though, obviously, ours are still the right ones. :) )

 

2) Did she follow her good morals, perhaps even putting these morals higher than her own self-interest?

I clearly don't know enough about that, so I won't judge her on that. But stating that she was evil because she was against anticonception (as an example) is a nonsensical argument, since it isn't established (see 1 above) that being against anticonception is evil (even if we have good, rational arguments that it is).

 

So, clearly, you or I are not in a position to judge Mother Theresa. We do not share her morals or believes. Let those who do share them do the judging, weighting what they consider important. If they want to consider her a saint, let them. Congrats to Mother Theresa. If they don't want to consider her a saint, then that's fine too. In our moral system sainthood isn't even defined, so why should we care?

Similarly, I do not want to be judged by the local Catholic bishop, by an American TV minister, or an imam in Raqqa. In their eyes, I must be evil, even if I would be perfect in following my own morals (which I certainly am not). (It would actually freak me out if they would consider me to be good.)

 

One final comment: I think this is an incredibly long discussion, that was prompted by something relatively meaingless that I wrote, without giving it much thought. I wrote in a sidenote that I could not be friends with someone if I was convinced that s/he was actively unethical at bridge, unless it would be the only flaw in his/her character... making him/her otherwise "an accepted good doer". I needed an image of "an accepted good doer" and, silly and uninformed as I was, I innocently (or so I thought) picked Mother Theresa, without thinking.

 

The next time, I will pick Mahatma Gandhi, though without a doubt someone will point out to me what all he did wrong. So, let's take Nelson Mandela (oh, oh, once upon a time a terrorist, and his divorce was ugly), Dag Hammarskjöld (he must have stolen apples as a kid or done something else wrong), Robin Hood (what?!? a common criminal?!?), Wilhelm Tell (freedom fighter or terrorist?), which -in the end- leaves us with Kermit the Frog ... and, unfortunately, I think there will be people who consider him evil too. (From time to time even Miss Piggy seems to think so.)

 

So, I fail. There is no accepted good doer. It won't be my last failure...

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

You cannot evaluate someone based on whether they are true to their own morals or beliefs. Slave owners, those who commit honour killings, terrorists, (I don't dare ay Hitler) were /are all true to themselves.

[Trinidad]

You cannot evaluate someone based on whether they are true to their own morals or beliefs. Slave owners, those who commit honour killings, terrorists, (I don't dare ay Hitler) were /are all true to themselves.

Ì was slightly inaccurate, and you refuse to understand. It is not about Mother Theresa's morals. It is about Mother Theresa's morals, that were (and still are) shared by a large part of the population of this planet. These morals are widely accepted, whether you like it or not.

 

To take your slave owner example:

You are entirely correct if you are talking about slave owners today. There is nobody nowadays (give or take a few loony's and perhaps some exotic tribes that I don't know of) who considers slavery morally acceptable. So, we can and should condemn anybody who owns slaves in 2015.

You are utterly wrong if you are talking about the slave owners in the 17th century or the slave owners in the Roman Empire. In those days, it was considered morally good to own slaves in the societies that these slave owners belonged to. The idea that all people were created equal had not been invented yet. (And one might wonder whether they considered there slaves "people".) So, it is anachronistic to condemn those slave owners based on today's morals. (Note that this does not mean that I am saying that the slaves weren't severely wronged. They were, without a doubt.)

 

And for the sake of completeness: the morals of today's terrorists are not shared by a large part of the world's population. And Hitler's morals were not shared by a large part of the world's population when the Holocaust was going on.

 

Rik

[billw55]

...

 

And for the sake of completeness: the morals of today's terrorists are not shared by a large part of the world's population. And Hitler's morals were not shared by a large part of the world's population when the Holocaust was going on.

But if they were ... then ok?

 

What would you say constitutes "a large part of the world's population"? 80%, 90, 99, or ... ?

 

 

[Winstonm]

Ì was slightly inaccurate, and you refuse to understand. It is not about Mother Theresa's morals. It is about Mother Theresa's morals, that were (and still are) shared by a large part of the population of this planet. These morals are widely accepted, whether you like it or not.

 

To take your slave owner example:

You are entirely correct if you are talking about slave owners today. There is nobody nowadays (give or take a few loony's and perhaps some exotic tribes that I don't know of) who considers slavery morally acceptable. So, we can and should condemn anybody who owns slaves in 2015.

You are utterly wrong if you are talking about the slave owners in the 17th century or the slave owners in the Roman Empire. In those days, it was considered morally good to own slaves in the societies that these slave owners belonged to. The idea that all people were created equal had not been invented yet. (And one might wonder whether they considered there slaves "people".) So, it is anachronistic to condemn those slave owners based on today's morals. (Note that this does not mean that I am saying that the slaves weren't severely wronged. They were, without a doubt.)

 

And for the sake of completeness: the morals of today's terrorists are not shared by a large part of the world's population. And Hitler's morals were not shared by a large part of the world's population when the Holocaust was going on.

 

Rik

 

Claiming a moral argument is, IMO, a method of blinding oneself to evidence. At one time a high percentage of the world's population believed the world to be flat. Evidence showed that belief incorrect.

 

Evidence now shows that all humans are of the same species, with small variations. Anyone who thinks themselves superior is simply incorrect. Slavery was wrong, even when considered neutral, not because of any moral reasoning but due to a lack of evidence that all men were part of the same species, and thus, equal.

[Trinidad]

But if they were ... then ok?

 

What would you say constitutes "a large part of the world's population"? 80%, 90, 99, or ... ?

What are you aiming at? Are you going to condemn the ancient South American civilizations for the bloody human sacrifices?

 

They were normal over there at the time, no matter how repulsive we might find them today.

 

If everybody would think that terrorism is okay, than that would be the moral, the norm, the standard of the time and place. How on Earth could you condemn a terrorist for doing what everybody thinks is okay?

 

Morals are subject to change. I cannot emphasize that enough. Today, we think that the slave owners were terribly wrong. In the 17th century, they (at least the society that the slave owners were part of) had an entirely different view.

 

And the important lesson to learn is: In 300 years people will know what all we are doing terribly wrong and immoral, right now. I don't know what it is, you don't know what it is, but they will know. (I now have this image in my mind of Sandra Bullock saying to Silvester Stallone: "You mean, like, exchanging fluids?!?" in Demolition Man. Who knows, sex might be a thing of the past by then.) I don't think it is fair to condemn us for something that right now, right here is perfectly normal, whether that is because we currently prefer these views or because our current knowledge is insufficient to know better.

 

Rik