I was at the laundromat messing around on my phone a few days ago, and I wrote this, and I'm reposting it with a few edits to save myself precious time. I don't usually do homework on Sundays but today I went to six hours of church and a linger-longer and a nursing home, and after this I would like to read some Legend of Zelda fan fiction before bed. So I'm not lazy, I'm efficient.
This week I read part of a really dumb article by some guy claiming to be a professor about "5 Conflicts Between Science and Religion". I won't show the undue respect of repeating his name or linking to his article, but you can easily Google it if your heart so desires. It's several months old but showed up in my phone suggestions amid the Star Wars and Legend of Zelda stuff for some reason. Since clicking on it, I've gotten several more (fortunately less dumb) articles on the topic. This author rightly condemns creationism and intelligent design as pseudoscience, but that's as much as I agreed with, as the rest of what I read is shockingly ignorant. He claims, for example, that interpreting the "days" in Genesis as hundreds of millions of years is a recent interpretation "forced into existence by science". Um, no, the Hebrew word translated as "day" literally means an unspecified period of time. This book, vastly removed from us in time and culture, was written to be largely allegorical, and many Christian thinkers for several centuries up to and including today recognized that. For example, St. Augustine (who predated Darwin by a few years, if I recall correctly), wrote that parts of Genesis that seem to be "at variance with the perceptions of [one's] own rational faculties... are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures". The absurdly literal fundamentalist interpretation, notwithstanding its spurious claim to represent "traditional" Christianity, is the actual recent one, dating to a retrenchment in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Anyone who isn't aware of that has no business writing about it. Today, creationism is still very much an American phenomenon and far more limited than its proponents try to pretend. The "professor" also claims that religion has historically suppressed science by refusing to investigate things so it could continue believing in "miracles". Um, excuse me, but what the crap? Is he trying to be funny? For most of civilization's history, virtually all scientists believed in God. They were scientists because they believed in God and wanted to learn more about Him by studying His creations. In other words, literally the opposite of what this guy is saying (and the oft-misrepresented incident with Galileo notwithstanding). Darwin himself believed in God, and saw "no reason why the views given in this volume ['On the Origin of Species'] should shock the religious views of anyone", and struggled with his faith later in life for philosophical reasons related to the suffering in the natural world rather than organic evolution or anything scientific per se. Again, Christians who argue from a "God of the gaps" mentality and try to stifle science by saying "God did it" are a loud, obnoxious, and increasingly irrelevant minority. For some unfathomable reason this author also cites the Big Bang - not the obnoxious TV show that now takes up the entire first page of Google results last time I checked, but the well-supported scientific theory that was first proposed by, oh, what's this, it couldn't be, a Catholic priest? And the Pope at the time was such a huge fan of this theory that his advisers asked him to tone down his enthusiasm? You don't say? Why anyone on either side regards this theory as a threat to religious belief is quite beyond my meager powers of comprehension, as is why he doesn't realize he undercuts his own argument with this. Nonexistent miracles, he thinks, are the entire basis of religious belief. "In history lies the realization that religion is nothing but a collection of assumptions about the unknown that disappear with the advancement of human knowledge." Ah yes, the tactic of pretending that you're so much smarter than and superior to billions of people who disagree with you never gets old and definitely doesn't make you an unlikable jackass at all. (The same principle applies to politics.) As if explaining how the physical world works were even remotely the primary purpose of any major religion. Maybe when scientists cure death and the unfairness of life (spoiler alert: they won't), people will stop looking for the higher purpose that most of their brains are hard-wired to look for. He also tries to pretend that confirmation bias is exclusive to religious people. That's cute. I didn't bother to finish reading because the shameless lies reduced my interest. Of course, in today's climate you can write any garbage you want attacking religion and thousands of idiots will applaud you for validating their bigotry. No need to waste your time with silly details like accurate facts. The late and unlamented Christopher Hitchens lied on virtually every page of his book "God is Not Great" (or at least I charitably assume his copious inaccuracies were deliberate rather than a result of impossibly shoddy research and a mental disorder compelling him to fabricate nonexistent quotes) and it became an instant bestseller, so I guess that's the standard we're aspiring to now. And I guess they're giving out PhDs in Cracker Jack boxes now. I respect intellectually honest atheists and I respect legitimate scientists and scholars, but this man has shown himself to be neither. It's just too bad that most of his readers won't see that. "I will say with regard to miracles, there is no such thing save to the ignorant - that is, there never was a result wrought out by God or by any of His creatures without there being a cause for it. There may be results, the causes of which we do not see or understand, and what we call miracles are no more than this - they are the results or effects of causes hidden from our understandings." - Brigham Young "Miracles cannot be in contravention of natural law, but are wrought through the operation of laws not universally or commonly recognized. In the contemplation of the miracles wrought by Christ, we must of necessity recognize the operation of a power transcending our present human understanding. In this field, science has not yet advanced far enough to analyze and explain. To deny the actuality of miracles on the ground that, because we cannot comprehend the means, the reported results are fictitious, is to arrogate to the human mind the attribute of omniscience, by implying that what man cannot comprehend cannot be, and that therefore he is able to comprehend all that is." - James E. Talmage tl;dr: Science and religion are not in conflict.
0 Comments
When "Breath of the Wild" was delayed to 2017, Shigeru Miyamoto famously said, "A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad." The same principle hopefully applies to these fan films that I'm awaiting with considerable eagerness. This anticipation is one of the very few things currently motivating me to continue slogging through the sea of raw sewage that is and has been 2018 for me. After considerable delays they will, in theory, release before this year is up, but if not, I'm sure the extra wait time will be worth it. They know people's expectations are high. Unless and until Nintendo greenlights the official Legend of Zelda movie that everybody wants, the freelance work of passionate fans will have to be enough. Rising DarknessAn original story with old and new characters. Legacy [of Courage]Probably the best adaptation of "Ocarina of Time" we can expect to come along for some time. Facebook Page: Legacy: A Legend of Zelda Fan Film Director's Website: Stephonika W. Kaye Director's Incredible Fan Novelization That More Than Adequately Demonstrates Her Qualifications to Lead This Project: Twilight Princess Novel Sage of DarknessThis is an old one, originally released in 2008, that I never got to see before it was pulled from YouTube. It undoubtedly will not measure up to modern standards. But it's loved by those who have seen it, and with some digital remastering and effects upgrades it's being re-uploaded one piece at a time. I'm waiting until all ten pieces are up before I watch them, but I look forward to that long-promised day. YouTube Channel: Josh Dixon
Against all odds, while dredging the internet for Legend of Zelda stuff to sate my obsession, I discovered a snarky synopsis of the Lamp Chop Chanukah Special entitled "Lamb Chop's Special Chanukah". If I wasn't already feeling nostalgic enough from working on my memoir, this cranked it up to eleven because I watched "Lamb Chop's Special Chanukah" when it aired in December 1995. I was two and a half years old. I really want to be two and a half years old again. All I remember from it was that Charlie Horse opened his Chanukah present early, prompting Lamb Chop to taunt "You're gonna get in trouble!", and that his present did indeed cause trouble as troublemaking people kept magically coming out of it, the first being some kind of genie who kicked the furniture and made something fall off the wall by yelling at it. It was very weird. Even at that age I wondered why Shari Lewis was giving her kids/pets such dangerous presents. Learning the context almost twenty-three years later hasn't really made it less weird. After reading the synopsis, I still don't remember anything else from it, but it fuels my nostalgia nonetheless. Since the special is inexplicably not on YouTube I'm debating whether to spend twenty dollars plus shipping on a VHS tape that I have no way of playing. And what are these other things? Lamb Chop's existence predates her early nineties show "Lamb Chops Play-Along" by over thirty years, though, and it turns out she's occasionally been a bit less than child-friendly, as in this couple of very old clips. I must admit that Lamb Chop swearing was not something I expected to hear ever, albeit they're just a couple of minor swears that aren't even swears in the United Kingdom, Australia or New Zealand. These clips both end with the same weird song, and that's the part most worth watching, as Shari Lewis switches between herself and the puppet with inhuman speed and precision. She never seemed old to me despite being in her sixties, but holy crap, she looks so young here despite probably being in her forties. It also turns out that Shari Lewis cheated by celebrating Chanukah and Christmas. What lucky kids/pets. As much as I loved The Legend of Zelda from the moment I discovered it, I wasn't impressed the first time I heard the Gerudo Valley theme music. It seemed to me like a simplified, inferior pastiche of David Arkenstone's "The Gypsy Camp" (which, though probably unrelated, is obviously meant to evoke a similar setting and culture). Only after a while did I come to appreciate the complexity I hadn't paid attention to before and how catchy it really is. Because I'm busy writing other things, here are a couple of weird fan arrangements that I happened to discover recently. I've gotten at least eight versions stuck in my head at a time but I figure few other people are patient enough to check them all out. NateWantsToBattle - ShellAs we all know, Nabooru was brainwashed into evil by the twin witches Koume and Kotake. Since she was okay in the end I never gave it a second thought. But this song, slowing the music down and using an electric guitar and adding lyrics, dwells on it and makes it disturbing. Which I love. But I'm still glad she was okay in the end. Gerudo Legend - Rozen feat. Julie ElvenThis one also adds a voice, but slows the music down even further to make it, well, epic. It sounds completely foreign to the original piece and yet still instantly recognizable. And "Elven" is a very appropriate surname for someone singing about a legend named after a princess with pointy ears. July 11th marked seven years since I moved to Logan, Utah, and once again the local 7-eleven celebrated with free Slurpees. I don't know what I did to make them like me so much but I'm not complaining. This town is the home where my heart is now and if not for the horrific air pollution in winter I would be content to stay here indefinitely. Many books that I fundamentally disagree with pass through my hands at work. This includes books written by crotchety atheists whose mission in life is to destroy the beliefs that make other people happy. (Obligatory disclaimer that I'm not criticizing all atheists.) I've read a couple of them, found them to be mostly garbage, and reviewed one here. And I'm not sure why anyone cares what Richard Dawkins has to say about anything after his assertion that we should clone human flesh and eat it to overcome our "irrational" taboo against cannibalism. But hey, free speech. Usually I don't give these books a second thought. But the other day I saw one that made me pause. I don't remember or care about the title, but it was subtitled "How Science Disproves God". And I got a little angry, because it drives me crazy when people's confidence is inversely proportional to their intelligence. Disagreement is one thing, but stupidity really rubs me the wrong way. Once again: science cannot disprove God. Science cannot prove God. An omniscient supernatural entity who controls anything is by definition impossible to test or falsify. (Faith, in order to not be blind, should be founded on spiritual evidence, analogous to how science works but with the crucial difference that this evidence comes to each person individually and cannot be evaluated by anyone else.) Science and religion/spirituality cover entirely different areas of knowledge, and as such are not in competition except in the puerile minds of a few simpletons in both camps. I will keep saying this until I die or everyone gets it into their thick skulls. So, until I die. (Of course there are some religious beliefs that inappropriately tread into science's realm and make easily disprovable claims about the physical world, e.g. that Earth is 6000 years old and humans are not related to any other animal. This kind of "fundamentalist" thinking, which mostly dates back to the early twentieth century and is rejected by the majority of theists worldwide, is perfectly appropriate to negate with science. But God's existence is not.) One of my favorite professors was James Pitts. Before I met him, I used the lab manual he co-wrote and met his daughter, so I had the impression that he was a very dry and not entirely pleasant individual. But then I had two classes with him. The first, called "Plagues, Pests, and People", made me never want to touch anything, eat anything, or breathe again. But I can't say it wasn't interesting. And one day I missed class because I went to DI to buy a picture of Jesus. Long story. And I missed a take-home test, and he wanted to know why I hadn't turned it in, and I said I had missed it, and he brought me to his office after class, brought me past the line of students outside, and gave me a copy because he said something about how its point was to test my knowledge rather than meet a deadline, or something. And I must have said something about liking dinosaurs because he pointed out his dinosaur books and said I was welcome to borrow them or come talk to him about dinosaurs sometime, and I would have liked to but because of my social anxiety I never did. The second class, "Darwin's Big Idea" or something to that effect, was more pleasant. In this class we read "On the Origin of Species", which most scientists and non-scientists alike have never bothered to do, and had discussions about how it held up and how evolution was engrained into our culture. The book holds up incredibly well. A few pieces are missing, like the mechanism behind species diversity that we now know as genetic mutations. And a few things are incorrect, like whatever convoluted explanation he came up with for whatever we now explain with plate tectonics; I don't remember the details. But by today's standards most of the book's contents is common sense that not even the most ardent creationist would dispute. It's hard to imagine there was a time when this information was revolutionary. Like, people literally didn't remember that they had bred all their different varieties of sheep from one ancestral species. I guess someone forgot to write that down. They must have felt sheepish. Speaking of writing, I wrote this essay for that class. It's about dinosaurs. Dr. Pitts had this amazing breadth and depth of knowledge that enabled him to go off on tangents about any topic we could think of. He lamented his proclivity to go off on so many tangents, but we assured him that we were learning more this way. He also showed a great deal of sensitivity. Near the beginning of the class he stressed out that while the Bible couldn't be used as a science book, that didn't mean it wasn't good or useful at all. In contrast, there was this one kid who was clearly an atheist and thought that our evolution class was anti-religion by default, and occasionally Dr. Pitts would have to kind of subtly reel him in without making a scene. It was beautiful. On Halloween, of all days, he was spring cleaning and gave each of us a book to keep. I got "The Panda's Thumb" by Stephen Jay Gould. It's a fascinating collection of essays on evolution, and perhaps most interestingly it explains the origin of words like "idiot" and "moron" that, sadly, were once scientific classifications of intelligence. I learned many things that the lab manual never told me. Dr. Pitts was an Army veteran from the south, Tennessee if I recall correctly, with a dry sense of humor. On the day Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev was shot by police, Dr. Pitts came in to class and drawled, "Did you hear they got one of the bombers? They got him the way I wanted him to be got." (I agree, and on that note, why on God's green Earth is his brother still alive well over three years after he was sentenced to death? This incompetence nauseates me.) He didn't get too political in class, although once he complained about some obviously Republican legislation to stop giving free school lunches to impoverished children, and I don't think anyone disagreed with him. He built and played his own musical instruments in his spare time. He taught us once in the diseases class, "There was a big kerfuffle a few years ago when the number of gonorrhea cases in Utah doubled. Went from one to two." Bwahaha. My point, that I've tried to get at in such a roundabout way, is that Dr. James Pitts was as good and smart a scientist as they come (I mean, he probably still is, but I haven't seen him in years), but he was also a normal person who had a normal personality and interests without deifying science and trying to make everything fit through that lens. I'm quite certain he doesn't wait for science to tell him that his jokes are valid or that it's okay for him to play instruments. He appreciates it as much as anyone, but he doesn't pretend the universe revolves around it and nothing else matters. He really humanized scientists for me and gave me hope that most of them are nothing like the idiots on the internet who try to put down religious believers by flaunting their own worship of science. I don't know or care if he believes in God himself, but his respectful and balanced approach was a breath of fresh air. We need more James Pittses in the world and fewer Richard Dawkinses. Be Your Babe - Brooke SurgenerAs I may have mentioned before, I'm on a Legend of Zelda kick right now. I cycle through my obsessions because my puerile mind can only focus on one thing at a time. I was obsessed with Star Wars not too long ago, but I cycled back to the Legend of Zelda because I was at a friend's house playing some non-Zelda games that reminded me of the Zelda games because they're also games. So I found this adorable song that has nothing to do with the Legend of Zelda but has an adorable Zelda-themed video to go with it. I keep thinking about how bizarre it would be to someone who's unfamiliar with the franchise. And I don't typically call men beautiful, but I can only describe the man who plays Link as beautiful. |
"Guys. Chris's blog is the stuff of legends. If you’re ever looking for a good read, check this out!"
- Amelia Whitlock "I don't know how well you know Christopher Randall Nicholson, but... he's trolling. You should read his blog. It's delightful." - David Young About the AuthorC. Randall Nicholson is a white cisgender Christian male, so you can hate him without guilt, but he's also autistic and asexual, so you can't, unless you're an anti-vaxxer, in which case the feeling is mutual. This blog is where he periodically rants about life, the universe, and/or everything. Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|