From now on (until I get disgruntled again and decide to rearrange), I’m posting book-stuff over here. I originally intended to have two identical blogs, one at WordPress and one at Blogspot, but posting the same stuff on both got annoying and no-one reads the Blogspot one anyway!

Courtesy of Booking Through Thursday:

Have you ever fallen out of love with a favorite author? Was the last book you read by the author so bad, you broke up with them and haven’t read their work since? Could they ever lure you back?

Actually, no. I’ve never cut all ties to an author. Must be true love. I’ve read a few books by favourite authors that I thought were just plain bad, but the next one gets a clean slate. One thing that weirds me out is when I find that an author actually genuinely believes in the ESP, or strange reincarnation/souls-ascending-to-the-next plane-of-existence elements of their books, which I had assumed were simply fantasy. But that’s not enough to make me abandon them altogether.

On the other hand, I often find my enthusiasm for a series wanes with time. The first book leaves me thinking I’ve found the next love of my reading-life, but six months down the track I’m returning the latest instalment to the library without reading it. Maybe I have commitment issues…

“… you’ve just gotta go ahead and replace the captain of your brainship, because he’s drunk at the wheel.” Classic Dr Cox

My very first meme! I copied this from Ex Libris. 

 

1. It has a Happy Ending.

2. It is not set in the world you know.

3. There is no prophecy, no orphan-with-a-special-destiny, absolutely no magical realism, and no token dog. 

4. There is a token cat. 

5. At least one of the main characters is a nerd, and proud of it.

6. A character rants about at least one of the following:

• clothing stores that only go down to a size 10
• the partying, binge-drinking, promiscuous, recklessly driving teen/student stereotype
• psychics
• how wonderful the internet is
• how un-wonderful it is to download music illegally
• politicians who care more about discrediting their opposition than improving the world
• religion 

7. There is a scene that is cheesier than this, in which the romance subplot resolves itself.

8. There is at least one Star Trek allusion. 

9. At some point a character says, “Don’t be stupid, that kind of thing only happens in books.”

10. My name is somewhere on the cover.

 

Consider yourself tagged!

 

Fear is temporary. Regret is forever.

Valentine’s day is not a big deal in my household but we will use any holiday as an excuse for food. I wanted heart lollies but strawberries were the closest thing at the dairy and they taste better anyway.  

As a rule, I don’t like poetry. I like studying it, working out exactly what it says and how, but when it comes to reading for pleasure I’ll take a novel thanks. But yesterday I was reading my friend’s blog in which she mentions a poem by Margaret Atwood. So I clicked the link and ended up getting distracted for quite a while over at poemhunter.com. The point: I found poems by J. R. R. Tolkien that I actually like.

I don’t know what the copyright status of his poems is so I’ll just link: I Sit and Think, All That is Gold Does Not Glitter and All Woods Must Fail. I like ‘I Sit and Think’ because I actually do sit and think similar thoughts. Not by a fire, and less nature-inclined, but in essence the same. I suppose, given the apparent popularity of this poem, that most people do. I usually end up feeling jealous of all the “people who will see a world that I shall never know,” so I like Tolkien’s conclusion. I think he’s saying that while we do wonder about the times before and after our lives, the things we’ll never see, and the good times that have passed, it’s the people we know and care about in the present that are our consolation and that are most strongly in our thoughts.

I was going to write about the other poems too but it’s getting late over here. Tomorrow: photos of what I baked on Valentines Day

The End

Life isn’t about finding yourself, it’s about creating yourself.

I spotted this one on a panel in the gift shop at the Christchurch cathedral (in the pic). I’ve no idea who said it but I like it. I think it is important to learn about yourself, but I also think that people have a lot of control over who they are.

 

A 15 year-old girl breaks her leg skiing. She goes to hospital, receives treatment involving a bone graft, and eventually heals. A few months later she has cancer and is dying.

What happened is that someone, posing as a reputable company, was harvesting and selling parts from bodies that should not have been used as donors. As a result, this girl was given a bone graft taken from a man who had terminal cancer. She loses decades of life and someone makes a tidy profit.

This is from the Bones episode ‘The Graft in the Girl.’ In the episode, Booth and Brennan catch the bad guys and the story ends on an uplifting scene with the girl, Amy, marvelling at a virtual reality recreation of the Louvre (she wanted to be an artist).

But it made me think: that sucks. Unless you want to count the profit made by the people who sold the cancerous bone, absolutely no good comes of it. Nothing to balance out the loss of Amy’s future and the pain to her and her family, no consolation. The unfairness of the whole situation is just mind-boggling. No matter how hard I think about it there’s no way to make it ‘ok.’

I don’t know if I could accept and get over something like that. I know (taking a utilitarian perspective) that if I were in Amy’s position it would be best to make the most of the time I did have and try to get as much happiness and experience out of it as possible, but it would still suck.

Also on my television screen this week: a Boston Legal episode in which a girl, also 15, sued her school for teaching abstinence-only sex-ed and misinformation about condom use. She wanted the school to take at least partial responsibility for the fact that she was now HIV positive, as a result of having unprotected sex. To complicate the picture, the school principal said that he had chosen the abstinence-only program (against his better judgement) because the school would lose federal funding otherwise.

The episode came down quite hard on the abstinence-only program, with the school being forced to drop it and the girl winning a lot of money. But again, it still sucks. She still has HIV, which will eventually kill her, and which could so easily have been avoided.

I felt that the school suffered unfairly too. It may well have been worth it to sacrifice quality sex-ed for the extra funding. I don’t know whether or not it’s true that schools teaching abstinence get more funding, but if it is (and I wouldn’t be surprised) then the people who ought to have been sued are the government.

From what I’ve heard and read, the efficacy of abstinence-only education is highly suspect. It seems most (even only) justifiable from a religious perspective and a religious perspective has no place in education. To quote a great little song: “Who the f*** are you to turn your views into my laws?” Ok, so I don’t live in the US so they’re not my laws. But still. People have a right to know the whole story, not just the part that fits with their government’s/parents’/teachers’ beliefs. You’ve got to have a damn good reason to withholding potentially life-saving information, like the fact that condoms protect against HIV. And a really damn good reason to teach what is just not true.

I wasn’t planning to bring religion into this, but it seems relevant. I don’t believe in an afterlife, so in my mind if suffering is to be rewarded or compensated for, it has to happen here in this lifetime. Which is doesn’t, a lot of the time. So I’m thinking that one of religion’s biggest draw-cards must be the fact that it makes things fair again. Heaven will make up for all the shit people go through down here. I imagine this could be a huge, huge comfort.

On the other hand, a world-view that assumes suffering in this life will be compensated for in the next could really do some damage. Who is going to be more motivated to feed the starving, or find a cure for cancer or AIDS: someone who believes this is the only life we get and that once it’s lost that’s game over, or someone who believes that this is only the beginning, that the pain we go through doesn’t really matter in the long run?

I don’t mean this as a ‘atheists care more than religious people’ rant because I know there are plenty of religious people who treat this life as important (as evidenced by the number of Christian aid organisations). I just wanted to point out the massive difference between a world-view that includes an afterlife and one that doesn’t. Imagine living the other way. 

One last thing. Yes, I do realise that television is not real life. However, while the telling of the story is art, the basic events in shows like Bones and Boston Legal are real for some.

Another last thing. I reallyreallyreally want Bones to come back on! House, Boston Legal, Lost, Grey’s Anatomy, Ugly Betty, Prison Break, Criminal Intent, Criminal Minds and all the rest are back, but not Bones :’( And the DVD for season two doesn’t get released for this region until the end of March…

I just realised that this isn’t very Valentine’s Day-y. So here are some cheery love-related quotes to compensate:

Love is friendship set on fire.
Love is a reality which is born in the fairy region of romance.
Love looks not with the eyes, but with the mind.
Love doesn’t make the world go ’round. Love is what makes the ride worthwhile.

There are a few things I don’t like about living in New Zealand (it’s miles away from anywhere, our itunes store doesn’t have the song I want, our television series are behind the US so we have to try not to get spoilered while we wait…) but one of the many good things is that we’re just west of the international date line so we get stuff like Darwin Day and the new millennium first. Anyway, here’s what I did:

Gingerbread ‘evolve’ fish. Some are a bit mutated… but that kind of fits in with the evolution theme I’m hoping to see Inherit the Wind some time too. Probably not tonight though because House and Boston Legal are on. Also the weather here is crap and I don’t want to go all the way into town to rent the DVD.

No jokes this time. Cartoons instead! Both (1, 2) are by Nick Kim. His work is also found in the HNN e-zine.

There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world; and that is an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

Here is the second instalment of 10 reasons why classical music rocks. Today’s theme is ‘really pretty stuff.’

1. Carillon from Bizet’s L’Arlesienne Suite No.1. Not the whole thing, just the middle part (1:50 to about 3:30). This isn’t a great recording, sorry, but it’s the best I could find. In the version I have the first and last sections are faster and the middle is slower… and I prefer it that way. I love how it gradually builds up with more and more parts coming in and adding more layers. A carillon is a tune played on bells but in this case I think it just sounds like bells at times. For those of you who don’
t know, Bizet is the guy who came up with this tune. The Carmen Suite (and Opera, if you prefer) is great : ) Go rent it from your local library.

These next two are very well known for being beautiful.

2. Jupiter, from Holst’s The Planets. Again, not the whole thing. It’
s all cool but the nice (and most famous) part starts at about 3:18.

3. Intermezzo from Cavalleria Rusticana by Mascagni. All of it! And if you’re going to get bored and stop listening, at least hold out until 1:30 because that’
s where it really takes off.

By the way, I’m picking the videos for their soundtrack not the images so some are kind of odd. : )

I once had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalogue: no good in a bed, but fine up against a wall. Eleanor Roosevelt
I think this counts as a joke and a quote.

 

My local music television channel does a show called ‘10 reasons’ where they play 10 songs with a theme like ‘10 reasons to sack the stylist’ or ‘10 reasons to grab a tissue.’ I’ve decided to copy the general idea and do ‘X reasons why classical music rocks,’ with X being however many it takes before I lose interest.

 

Disclaimer: I play the violin not particularly well in an amateur orchestra and a (very) little piano. I’ve been playing in orchestras since I was about 8 so I’m pretty familiar with the most well-known stuff, but I am not a professional musician/expert-type person so don’t expect any level of depth or wisdom from me whatsoever

 

Without further ado, here are my first two picks:

 

1. Finlandia, written by Jean Sibelius (1865-1957) in *consults wikipedia* 1899. You can probably guess his nationality…

 

Finlandia is awesome. There’s great quote that goes something like this: music is what emotions sound like. Finlandia starts off pretty angry-sounding but there are also really sweet parts and sad parts and hopeful parts and excited parts and it ends on a good note (haha). Unfortunately I know virtually nothing about Finland and its history but I’m sure if you did, the music would be more meaningful.

 

And just randomly… there’s a bit (just before 2:00 on my recording) that reminds me of the music from the part at the end of The Lion King when the battle is over and Simba walks up Pride rock to become the new king.

 

Hear it here

 

There are also several sets of lyrics that go with part of the piece. These are my favourites, which are apparently something of a humanist anthem (with ‘God’ changed to ‘people’ ):

Lloyd Stone wrote an international version of the lyrics in 1934:

This is my song, Oh God of all the nations,

A song of peace for lands afar and mine.

This is my home, the country where my heart is;

Here are my hopes, my dreams, my sacred shrine.

But other hearts in other lands are beating,

With hopes and dreams as true and high as mine.

My country’s skies are bluer than the ocean,

And sunlight beams on cloverleaf and pine.

But other lands have sunlight too and clover,

And skies are everywhere as blue as mine.

Oh hear my song, oh God of all the nations,

A song of peace for their land and for mine.

 

 

 

Ooh, when I googled to find the lyrics, I also found that Dar Williams (also awesome, one of my favourite musicians) has sung this! Yay! A weird coincidence, but yay!

 

2. Pachelbel’s Canon, written by Johann Pachelbel (1653-1706) sometime around 1680. A.k.a Canon in D major. Very famous. You probably know it even if you don’t recognise the name.

 

One of the cool things about classical music is that some of it people have been listening to for centuries. Lifestyles have completely changed, but we are still enjoying exactly the same sounds. Not only do we still like the original Canon (unless you’re a cellist) but some musicians have come up with their own versions, like Graduation (Friends Forever) by Vitamin C.

 

Here is a ‘normal’ version.

Here is a comedian’s take on it.

This is just the tip of the youtube iceberg.

 

 

Music is the art which is most nigh to tears and memory. Oscar Wilde

 

Q: Why do cellists stand for long periods outside people’s houses?

 

A: Because they can’t find the key and don’t know when to come in. 

 

Q: What’s the difference between the first and last desks of a cello section?

 

A: A semi-tone.

 

I’m sorry. I don’t have anything against cellists and I’m well aware that these jokes apply just as well to most other instruments! 

I much prefer reasoned and logical attempts to convert me to any other kind, so I think the guy who wrote this article has taken a good approach to the subject of atheism. However, I do ( perhaps unsurprisingly) disagree with most of his conclusions.

 

To be perfectly honest, I don’t understand the whole article. Whether this is because I am missing something or the writer is, I don’t know. What you are (hopefully) going to read here is my response to the points I do understand, and feel particularly strongly about. I’ll summarise the points as clearly and accurately as I can. Unless it’s easier to quote

 

1. Atheism is irrational because we can’t disprove God’s existence. We don’t know everything and so we can not say with certainty that there is no God.

 

My answer: I expect most atheists would agree with the second sentence. This part of the argument is directed (as the author acknowledges) at ‘hard atheists’ who claim there is no God. To my mind, this is irrational. No more irrational than believing with certainty in that God does exist, mind you.

 

As for ‘soft atheism’(simply not believing there is a God), I think this is a perfectly rational position. Given the evidence available to me, I see no reason to believe that the Christian God (or any other) is anything more than a myth. There is no more compelling evidence for that God than for Zeus, Papatuanuku, or Goddy.

 

Maybe God can’t be disproved beyond all doubt, but beyond reasonable doubt I think so. I don’t think God is an un-testable hypothesis: we can look for things we would expect to happen/exist in a universe with a God. If we find them, 1 point theists. If not, 1 point atheists. (Not that it’s a competition.) The experiment on the effect of prayer on patients’ recovery is one such test.

 

 

2. “The evidence for the existence of God is there for all to see, only we refuse to see it.”

 

My answer: This claim seems absurd to me. It seems to assume that atheists don’t want there to be a God, that we are in denial. If there is clear evidence, we atheists will want front-row seats!

 

 

3. “Unless God exists, there is no eternal and transcendent standard for right and wrong.”

 

My answer: I wrote an essay on this topic for an ethics paper last year which I will dig up and use as the basis for a later post on this topic. For now I’ll just say this: Why should God be the only source of moral standards? Maybe neither eternal and transcendent standards nor God exist.

 

 

4. Collective tradition is not an adequate basis for morality, as evidenced by Nazi Germany. Christians can say it is wrong to exterminate Jewish people because it goes against the commandment ‘thou shall not kill,’ but “[h]ow can an atheist respond? Most would admit the Nazis were evil, but according to what standard?”

 

My answer: This atheist responds that the Nazi agenda was morally wrong because it caused massive amounts of unjustified suffering. Both sides in WWII killed. Was it wrong to fight Hitler’s regime when it meant killing? If God determines what is right and wrong, then if God had said ‘Thou shalt exterminate all Jews,” would that make it right to do so? More on this in a future post. I do agree that collective tradition is no basis for morality—slavery is one example where tradition fell horribly short. Interestingly enough, slavery gets the go-ahead from God in the Bible…

 

 

5. “Atheistic assumptions irresistibly lead to the conclusion that morality is nothing more than a matter of personal or societal preference.”

 

My answer: Sounds about right. Does it necessarily follow that morality derived this way is irrational? I happen to think that people are quite capable of coming up with compassionate and reasoned morals. I see no reason why our preference should be for bad morals.

 

 

6. “I challenge any atheist to give me a basis for ethics beyond mere personal preference, social custom, or survival. They simply cannot do it.”

 

My answer: I’m no expert, but here’s my idea: we pick some values (happiness, truth, justice, for example) and then make creating or increasing these things morally ‘right’ and destroying or lessening them morally ‘wrong.’ I need to work on the details…

 

There are a lot of books on this topic that do a much, much better job at answering this question than I can.

 

 

7. “God’s existence is clearly seen in what He has made. The intricate brilliance of the created order reveals the mind of an infinitely intelligent Designer just as surely as a great work of architecture or a complex piece of technology reveals the mind of its designer.”

 

My answer: I really hope people will give up on this argument soon. It has been refuted repeatedly by experts in the relevant fields. I’m not one of them, so I’ll stop here. I guess this isn’t really an answer but I couldn’t leave this claim unscathed.

 

 

8. “The truth is, if you are an atheist, it is not because it makes sense, it is because you don’t want to face up to the fact that there is a God out there to whom you are accountable. You don’t like God and are trying to hide from Him.”

 

My answer: That is untrue. Insulting also, though that’s not really relevant. Personally, I would love eternal life. I would love to believe death is not the end, that I will see my friends and family again in an afterlife with clouds and harps. If there was reason to believe this is the case, I would be thrilled.

 

It is true that I don’t like the Biblical God. In fact, I sometimes wonder how anyone can love and worship the God described in the Bible, the God who allows tsunamis, holocausts and child cancer unless out of fear of eternal damnation.

 

Atheism isn’t running away from accountability. Atheism is facing up to the reality of our short lives, of our limited (but growing) understanding of the universe, and to the fact that not everything can be explained neatly by the existence of God. Shit happens, and not necessarily for a reason. Just because we are uncomfortable with the idea of having to work out ethics for ourselves, or the idea of losing our loved ones forever, or not knowing how we got here, doesn’t mean that is not the way things are.

 

I’m not saying atheism is a braver choice than Christianity. I think both give you plenty to be uncomfortable with, and scared of. I am saying that atheism is not absurd or irrational. I am an atheist because that is the reality I see around me, because it does make sense, not because I am afraid to believe.

 

Nearly finished. Three more (short) points.

 

First, I have used atheism in a broad sense, assuming that atheists don’t believe in an afterlife either. The term seems to have taken on a lot more meaning than simply ‘not believing in god(s).’ I suppose that, technically, an atheist could believe that true morality is dictated by pixies…

 

Second, wouldn’t most, if not all, of the arguments made in The Absurdity of Atheism apply to any god? It is quite a leap from “[t]he intricate brilliance of the created order reveals the mind of an infinitely intelligent Designer” to the idea that this creator is the same one described in the Bible, and not one of these other deities. Or something else entirely. I like the idea of aliens, but that begs the question, where did the aliens come from…?

 

Third, yes I made Goddy up Papatuanuku is a Maori god.

 

The End

 

Next up: something entirely unrelated to religion, but about as close to a spiritual experience as I get

 

 

Q: What’s green and invisible? (Kudos to my friend Brooke for this one =D )

A: This lettuce →          

 

Love doesn’t make the world go ‘round. Love is what makes the ride worthwhile. Franklin P. Jones