JESUS: Just Easy Sounds for Universal Salvation

Once there was a prog rock keyboardist and vocalist named Neal Morse. He played with Spock's Beard and Transatlantic, and he had a solo career. He had a somewhat gratingly poppy voice, but the music he played was usually very cool. Then one day he met someone new: Jesus. He was, as the kid's say, Born Again. And then he decided writing interesting prog rock is not his scene. He'd rather play aggressively bland adult contemporary about how Jesus loves you come to Jesus Jesus is the one true way O Lord.

Actually, truth told, most of his Post-Jesus stuff is still pretty decent, if less interesting than his previous works, but he put out one song, "Children of the Chosen," that is so very bad, and so very typical of modern Jesusmusic (and played so very often on the prog rock station I listen to), as to prove my point entirely.

My point is: what the hell is it about modern American Protestantism that invites such very shitty music? It's not exactly as if religious devotion never yielded impressive musical works, just ask Bach or Mozart or Ravi Shankar (or King Diamond for that matter).

My belief on the matter is it is a change among religious thinkers as to what the function of music should be in religion. If one looks at a society like Europe in ages past, where membership in a Christian institution (Protestant or Catholic) was assumed, one sees music that was written for purely liturgical purposes; the sole goal was praising God in musical form. The music is a form of prayer, and one cannot glorify God with shitty music*. Thus, we got things like "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring."

Now, however, we live in 21st Century America, and there is a war on. The God Fearing Christians, in particular the Born Again variety, think of music in a different way. It is a recruitment tool in the culture war against the godless heathens.

Of course, this begs the question, if they are using music as a recruiting tool, then why aren't they writing good music? The most likely answer to this seems to me to be that rather than taking the tack of writing Top 40 style pop music, which grabs many ears but can still be very polarizing, they have preferred the strategy of writing bland music, so as to captivate few but offend even fewer. Christianity thus becomes a path of no resistance, so that those who think the least and are the easiest to offend will be the most likely candidates to drift in.

Still doesn't understand how a vibrant prog rocker got suckered in though.




*This is to say nothing of modern Catholic music, for which there can be no earthly explanation, and over which I would imagine God feels extremely smiteful.

Something completely different

श्री श्री महासरस्वती, ॐ एइम सरवात्येई स्वाहा।

या कुंदेंदु तुषार हाराधावाला, या शुभ्रवास्त्रावृथा,
या वेनावारा दंदामंदिताकारा, या श्वेता पद्माअसना,
या ब्रह्मअचयुथा शंकर प्रभ्रितिभिर देवैसदा वन्दिथा ,
सा माम पातु सरस्वती भगवते निह्शेशा जाद्यापहाल।

Awesome. Thanks blogger.

Don't! Stop Believing!

Last week, Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, two of the creationism movement's foremost idiots, went on national tv to try and prove the existence of God, claiming they would be able to do so without invoking faith or the Bible. Opposing them were a couple of dorky, atheist 20-somethings calling themselves the Rational Response Squad. Suffice it to say, Cameron and Comfort not only didn't prove anything, they also didn't avoid invocations of faith or scripture.

Comfort's purported proof was not in fact any sort of proof, it was conjecture. He conjectured that if you see a painting, you know there was a painter; ergo, creation is proof of creator (he has made this argument before, using a soda can as proof of a soda factory). He further claimed that, if one wanted to verify this scientifically in a lab experiment, one could gather scientists in a lab and ask them if a painting were proof of a painter. Now, there are several ways to debunk this argument, but the first that occurs to me is that that is not an experiment, it is a survey, and only proves what people think about the painting, not what actually created it. Another argument that has been made against Comfort's weird claim is that this line of thinking means something must have created God, but that's not actually proof against creation; it's more of a philosophical cunundrum. He then went on to attempt to "stir the conscience" in order to get people to do their "God given duty" and ... I'm not sure, but I think he was going for believing. This was, of course, problematic given his original premise.

The Rational Response Squad, though starting by just asserting that Comfort had failed, and debunking his several claims (making the point, among others, that the existence of a painter can be verified by asking around and finding him or her, whereas God is more elusive), then went on to make scientific arguments against creation and logical arguments against God.

This brings me to my point: in arguments between atheists and creationists, atheists will appear to win 99% of the time. Of course it helps that Comfort and Cameron are morons who also believe that bananas are proof of creation and that non-scientist evolution-supporters who claim not to be experts are a hole in the argument for Darwinian evolution, but the same would happen with other, less crazy creationists/intelligent designists. This is not because atheists are necessarily right that God does not exist. It is because modern creationists choose to attempt to use science and logic (or things they call science and logic) to prove the existence of God. The problem with this is that God, if he/she/it does exist, is not a scientific or logical being. And this is a problem, not only for Christian creationists, but for atheists as well.

The argument for creationism is that God intervened with the world in some tangible, measurable way to create life as we know it, and that we can be sure of this. The argument for atheism is that there is nothing at all, in any form anywhere, that is not in some way tangible or measurable, and that we can be sure of this. I was raised Catholic, and I never believed either of these, nor was I told to believe either of these by any spiritual authority figure in my life. I never saw a conflict of interest between what I was told about science and what I was told about religion, because it was always impressed upon me that it was beyond human understanding to grasp the way that someone like God behaves.

So to creationists, I pose this question: why do you try and prove a non-specific idea using scientific methods? And to atheists, I pose this question: how can you prove scientifically that something that is beyond science does not exist?

And to everyone, I pose another question: Why do we care? Many arguments have been made about this too, of course. Many claim that God's existence is the only reason to act within any sort of moral code, which I believe is quite a hateful comment on the human condition. And of course, it begs the question, where are people more moral, more orderly in their behavior, in theocracies like Saudi Arabia and Iran, or in aggressively secular states like Sweden and the Netherlands?

Some creationists have said of science that it is more of a leap of faith to deny God than to accept God. While I would call this quite a hyperbole, I would also call it a fair point that absolute denial of God is in fact somewhat of a leap of faith. To do so with surety, one must presume that only what one perceives empirically is real. This, just like the assumption that one's own set of folklore and traditions are more divine than anyone else's, is an arrogant thought. Belief - any kind - is arrogant and small-minded. Many have said it before, of course, but it bears repeating. The cliché goes that the only thing you can be sure of is that you can't be sure of anything. I, however, don't even claim to be sure that I can't be sure of anything. Who knows what revelations the next day will bring? I sure don't claim to. This is because I'm an agnostic.

You know, in case you were wondering.

QUIPs

There is a lot about the way people talk today that pisses me off, as most of you are probably aware. Today we discuss gripes that go beyond issues of propriety of usage and semantic contradiction (as in misuses of "literally" and the phrases "very" or "sort of unique"). Today's QUIPs, or Questionably Used or Irritating Phrases deal instead with socio-cultural or political issues.

The first of these QUIPs is "World Music."

The most popular music in the world is not actually pop music. It is, in fact, world music.
--Sifl and Olly

This generally refers to any music that is non-western, or any contemporary music whose style did not originate in the English-speaking west. This is either arrogant or maliciously lazy. The assumption here is that, for all the subdivisions that can be made of American popular music, all the hundreds of subgenres of metal and punk and jazz and electronic music, all those things that end with -core, there are two words that encompass all the other music from every other society. Are you from Lapland? Perhaps Siberia? Perhaps you hail from Jakarta, or Sao Paolo, or Lagos. It doesn't matter, though, because you are just the rest of the world, so you just play "World Music." All this being said, some bands are in fact eclectic in their style, having elements of music from many different parts of the world, and thus could arguably be described as "World Music," as it is music that attempts to be simply of the world rather than its particular culture of origin.

The second QUIP: "Anti-Semitic." This, in common usage (actually, in just about all usage) means "in opposition to the Jewish people, nation, and/or society." However, it literally means a more general opposition to all Semites. Most people see the word in context and thus would assume that a Semite is a Jew. And ethnically Jewish people are indeed Semitic. However, they are scarcely the only Semites in the world. In fact, with this popular definition of Anti-Semitic, the most prominent Anti-Semites in the world are, in fact, Semitic. Care to guess who? Perhaps you have guessed it: The Palestinians. Along with Egyptians, Assyrians, Iraqis, Saudis, etc. Arabs are Semitic. A good portion of the "Anti-Semitic" statements made in the modern world are made in Arabic, a Semitic language.

Now, some racially motivated people probably are Anti-Semitic, but even these people probably seperate in their minds the cultures of the Jews and their Semitic neighbors. Preferably, if you want to describe a sentiment or person that is in opposition to the Jewish people, nation, or society, say "Anti-Hebrew," "Anti-Jewish," "Anti-Israeli," something along those lines that clarifies which Semites are being opposed.

More Like Eid BULL-Adha

Saddam Hussein was hanged on the eve of the Muslim holiday of Eid Ul-Adha. Much has been made of this, and it was probably a very stupid idea, which will upset many in the Muslim world and may serve to make Saddam a martyr. However, I think the very notion of this holiday is a hideous thing.

Eid Ul-Adha, the Festival of Sacrifice, commemorates one of the absolute worst stories in the original JudeoChristIslamic tradition. This is the story wherein Abraham (or Ibrahim in Arabic), prophet and father of this tradition, unquestioningly follows orders to kill his own son at God's whim. At the last moment, God sends a messenger to stop the sacrifice. This shows a God that is both cruel and despotic, but interestingly is no hypocrite. The story provides an interesting foreshadow of God's actions towards His own son in later portions of the Bible. Of course, this is beside the point, as this is a discussion of Islam, which does not hold Jesus as the son of God. The real point I'm trying to make here is, happy Eid Ul-Adha. Please use the opportunity to do something nice for your children, if you have them, and reflect on the symbolism of our sacrifice of Saddam as a child of American foreign policy.

Bush v Satan

This just in: Bush #1 Villain of 2006, or so says a poll conducted by the AP and AOL. When asked to name the person they thought of as the greatest villain of the year, 25% of respondents named G-Dub. Comparitively, 6% named Saddam, 5% named Ahmadinejad, 2% named Kim Jong Il, and about 1% each named Satan, Hillary Clinton, Rosie O'Donnell, and a whole grim cast of others.

The jokes are too easy. However, I think it's more remarkable that Saddam Hussein, a man who has been in custody for quite some time now (and indeed all of 2006) is considered a greater villain than a histrionic dictator known to have at least some nuclear weapons AND a far right muslim leader who puts on holocaust denial festivals. Also, I'd like to meet the people who responded "Satan." I'll bet they are very interesting folks.

Mephisto v Mephisto

Today, in celebration of being done with school for almost a month, I will turn my bloggy guns on a subject which I am grossly unqualified to be shooting at: evolutionary biology. Specifically, the present madness involving the incessant attacks upon the science thereof by crazy bible heads. As I cannot argue real science, I will make a brief philosophical point on the matter that has been poking at my mind for some time.

The point involves the concept of Occam's Razor. If the simplest answer truly is the most likely, one must ask, which of the following is the simplest answer: all life evolved from single cellular organisms over countless millions of years, or God did it. Well, the latter certainly wins for brevity, but now I shall have a grand old time debunking my own theory which I only introduced seconds ago!

Point 1: Occam's Razor is not a law. It is at least a suggestion, at most an ideal type. Not all things can be forced to apply to this standard.

Point 2: This is only a partial interpretation of Occam's Razor. The full thought implies that competing theories must be equal in other respects for the simplest one to necessarily prevail, and the theories of creation versus evolution are nowhere near equal, as there is more than zero evidence for protracted evolution, and approximately zero evidence for spontaneous creation.

Point 3: "God did it" is not necessarily the simplest answer, because one third of the words in the sentence represent a philosophical debate that has lasted for the entirety of human communication. "God did it" can only be the simplest answer if God is a given, which he she or it is most certainly not.

Well that was fun. The best part about debates against oneself is that you always win!

This just in!

Holy shit guys!

Any of us who never got into the whole Chuck Norris fad will sure feel vindicated now, 'cause the man is a Creationist Christian commentator (linked to by Pharyngula). I mean, just wow. Never saw that one coming.

On the flip side of things that caught me by surprise, New Jersey's supreme court mandated that gay partnerships must be legislated, which means that the state will soon have either civil unions or marriages open to same sex couples. But really now, where the fuck is Washington on this one? We can't let New Jersey be a better state than Washington in anything! Let's get movin' guys!

The Culture War Implodes

Apparently, shocking everyone in the universe (himself most of all), Bill O'Reilly is a secularist anti-Christian.

First off, let me say that this really confirms once and for all that John Lofton is completely deranged out of his skull.

But more importantly, it is very interesting to read Bill O'Reilly in the context of being among his fellow far-righters. It's admirable that he makes any points in favor of public secularism in America, and it really drives home the point that the problem with him isn't so much how far to the right he is. The problem (not particularly displayed here) has always been how insane he is. What is displayed here against him, however, especially in the quoted discussion between him and an "ex-homosexual" about interpreting the Bible, how his opinions are whatever he feels like them to be at the moment with no particular reasoning.

I'd like to see O'Reilly and Limbaugh duke it out.

(thanks to Dispatches from the Culture War for the link)

Where Dead Guitarists Lie

Metalhead as I am, I suppose I do have to comment on the suicide of Dissection's Jon Nötveidt. Scarcely the first -- or most important -- black metal persona to end himself, Nötveidt does have the distinction of being the only major character in black metal history so far to have a murder AND a suicide under his belt. But while the man did seem like an asshole even by black metal standards, I do give him credit for never corpsepainting himself or taking on a goofy pseudonym; Jon Nötveidt is a pretty great name, though not quite as good as Øystein Aarseth.

Now, notably I'm not really that much of a Dissection fan. They're good and everything, I just never got particularly into them. But, I do have opinions on the death itself. Many -- possibly including himself -- have purported that he ended his life in the fashion of a "true Satanist," at the time when his "power" was at its height and he had achieved everything he sought to achieve. Now, I don't know if this is really how a true Satanist should act, or indeed if this is actually how he was acting/thinking as he slew himself. I do know, however, that Satanism is, in general, tacky and pretentious, and that is exactly the way this whole thing seems. A true Satanist kills himself/herself and then makes a big deal about being a true Satanist.

Many Blogs, part 2

Now, moving on to Tara's request, I will write about spirituality aside from the aspect of organized religion, the positive side of it as I see it.

I consider myself a spiritual person, by and large. I believe that there is more to the universe than the empirical; that there is more to this world than this world. That being said, I don't believe that there is any definitive way to qualify or quantify the world beyond what we can empirically observe. Suffice it to say that there are experiences in this world that can be interpreted as "spiritual" ones, whatever that may actually mean. Indeed, I am of the belief that all experiences in this world should be treated as such. I believe in, to put it in as dense a manner as possible, the transcendent spirituality of the carnal* and terrestrial. There's nothing that can't be treated as a form of personal worship or meditation or whatever else you want to call it. Everything from cooking to making music to sex to taking a shit, and so on and so forth and shooby dooby doo.

I keep meaning to attend a Quaker meeting, out of curiosity more than anything, but have not had the opportunity yet.


*While this does include the meaning of carnal that I'm sure you just thought of, it also includes other things. So there.

Look Out, Mario

When I was young, my neighbors (heavy Christians that they were) had a video game for the NES called Bible Adventures. It was a goofy little game, composed of three seperate games based on classic Bible stories: Noah's Ark, the birth and protection of baby Moses, and David v. Goliath. The first involved carrying animals and throwing them onto a boat, the second involved carrying a baby and avoiding Egyptian soldiers who wanted it dead, the third involved throwing a stone at a giant. In other words, carry stuff, throw stuff (you could throw baby Moses at any point in the game, which was essentially the good part of the game, unless you count stacking animals on top of each other in the Noah game). Essentially, it was a poorly animated and interactive retelling of three classic Bible tales that we young 'uns all knew from our Church learnin', and would appeal cross-denominationally (if it appealed at all), and was even inclusive of little Jewish kids (except for the name). So it was lame, but not a bad little stocking stuffer for religious parents.

When I was quite a bit older (15), there was an episode of the Simpsons that mentioned a game that might have been a vague reference to Bible Adventures, called "Billy Graham's Bible Blaster," in one tried to convert heathens (but if you weren't thorough, they became Unitarians). This was pretty genius, I thought.

Now, a good 16 to 18 years since the release of Bible Adventures, another Christian-oriented game is on its way out, this time looking a little more like the Simpsons' view of Jesus gaming, but is perhaps -- no, distinctly more ridiculous. From the makers of some of the most hilariously bad books and filmic versions thereof since the rise of John Grisham, ladies and gentlemen...

Left Behind: Eternal Forces.

Just like in Rod and Todd Flanders' copy of Bible Blaster, you are on the streets converting non-believers. Only this time, if the pagan bastards won't have it, you've got something else up your sleeve: a paramilitary force. Of course, after killing in God's name, your troops must pray for God's forgiveness, lest their spirituality be depleted so much that they be won over by the AntiChrist (the spawn of Satan, in this version of the world, is nefarious UN Secretary Nicholae Carpathia, who, in a recent Left Behind film, unleashed his vile plot to place the entire world under ONE CURRENCY! Ooh, the dastard). The game is a real-time strategy, and involves supernatural spectacles of angels and demons come to assist or deter you, respectively.

I don't think anything else I could write could possibly make this any funnier than it is, so I'll leave you to stare at your computer screens for a spell.

[Thanks to Pharyngula]