It's a long slog. At any time since 2004 I could say confidently that I am done writing this thing and that the script is ready to shoot.
But it is one of those concepts where the research never stops and it keeps reinventing itself, so it is for the best that previous versions never got shot.
That being said, the bar is set pretty high so that by the time I am done shooting this it will be another Kong-size monkey off my back.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Sunday, July 13, 2008
The Odd Delusion
Research is ongoing even though I have declared the script finished a few times.
Always one or two cheeky things to incorporate. Or exclude. Putting words into the mouth of a Jesus character can be dicey.
I’m reading a book by atheist Richard Dawkins which is quite precise in its exploration of semantics. But before I get into what he says or doesn’t say, let me bog down explaining what I mean. When I say he I mean Dawkins, and when I attribute a comment to him I could also mean one of the many quotes from others he is using to support his arguments. On one hand it uses a quote that slams anyone who confuses a use of the word God as guilty of high treason and on the other giving a free pass to Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein for repeatedly referring to God while at the same time apparently meaning “the God of science” which is not the image usually invoked or understood in common language. Usually Dawkins is precise with his own word choice, or at least he keeps telling us that he is. And since the question of God and science predates many of the people using the term God to mean something other than supreme being, one would expect more from those geniuses.
In my ignorance as a Catholic which apparently means I have below average intelligence, I had been willing to accept that if we believe in a God then science would not be isolated from him, her or it because God would have created science, Natural Selection, Charles Darwin, et all. But much time is spent on the passionately held rules where supposedly theories of the supernatural should not be held up to the scrutiny of existing science. I'll admit I do not know for sure that an ovum could be split on its own and double its chromosomes to 46 and begin the process of gestation without the introduction of a sperm, so I wouldn't presume to engage on the topic of virgin birth. But I would expect a scientist to at least mention that hypothesis. Much of the book might make one's eyes glaze over, especially the insistence that the big bang was minor compared with the "big crunch" which imploded another previous universe in order to create the stuff of the bang. That is at least funny, even though it is arbitrary and stalls on the eventual discussion of a point where there had to have been nothing before the beginning of something. It leaves the passionately frothing-at-the-mouth insistence that crunch is a better word than bang, and apparently as for how Natural Selection works chance is dismissed by Dawkins but luck is mentioned often. So chance is superstition and silliness but luck is an element of science and reason.
To support Natural Selection, which I have nothing against, this book states that it is illogical to demand that every stage be covered and explained and gives the example of a security camera that records every stage of a crime. To defend Intelligent Design one might make the same claim, so the standard seems to be lowered where convenient for Dawkins. This leads me to say something a little mean: It's easy for a Darwinian disciple to hide behind the skirt of science as a banner thought mode and take credit for the efforts of those who are curing diseases, but ultimately the reverence for Natural Selection isn't much of a specialisation for a scientist. It appears to be the least useful form of science, as speculative as what may well be the mythology and magic that it purportedly opposes.
Dawkins has a vested interest in Darwinism, perhaps more so than the rest of us. He has a level of zeal for his school of thought that could be called religious, because it does bind him back to itself. Instead of a tenured professor and brilliant author the impression one gets from listening to the book on a set of unabridged CDs is one of defensive runt with sand kicked in his face buy the theologians. The bully thing comes up frequently, even to the extent of suggesting the experiment where we substitute the word jew or communist or witch with “atheist.” At the same time, when someone suggests that a matter cannot be answered by science but can be left up to the theologian Dawkins is bitterly dismissive of that area of study to the point of comparing a theologian to a janitor. This doesn't stop him and his wife (Dr. Who's Lalla Ward) from later referencing Theologians who support some of their claims.
I must say that a recent interview I caught on TV Ontario allowed Professor Dawkins to come off as less hostile than in the reading of his own book which is as chilly and condescending as his friend Douglas Adams was whimsical. Additionally, as his wife interjects quotes throughout this teamwork gives me two impressions. While she does break up the listening experience so that we remain engaged by the vocal changes, the stuffiness and smug formality is uniform and it plays like two people forming a united front or a tag-team – a ploy which would be more redundant if their arguments were more persuasive. Much time is devoted to speculating about the secret popularity of atheism throughout history and current society as if it has to be popular to be right.
They are quick to call critics of their favourite theories on "cheek" and yet constantly insult God believers at every turn (usually somewhat justified, but they have no right to expect a lack of cheekiness, edge or smugness in return as their own life's work is peed upon). In Natural Selection, just who is doing the selection? Is improbability a science, or is it a leap of faith? Certainly the zeal which drives this reading of The God Delusion is no less a closed system than many religions. Believers are easy targets in that The Bible and other holy books do not stand up to close scrutiny and those points of Dawkins hit home easily. But the distinction between chance and Natural Selection gets very tedious, like a joke that could have used a rewrite by buddy Adams to become funny. Dawkins allows that the tiny changes in all things over time are small improbabilities. Then he hinges much of his belief system on the idea that no complex organism can exist which hasn't changed from a less complex form and only the sudden appearance of a creature that has never evolved or changed would satisfy him that there is a God. He also states that if there is a God he would have to be complex. How is that statement scientific? If simplicity is the natural result of profound thought, why wouldn't God be simple? Why wouldn't a God be like so many of the great ideas, where we slap our foreheads in embarrassment and wonder why we didn't think of something so obvious?
In his TV interview, Dawkins was asked his opinion of charitable acts and how they fit into Darwin’s model. He agreed that he had no explanation and that he was happy we have risen beyond our Darwinian history in those cases. Great save, except that it assumes that charity and looking after the ill are traits new to humanity and not something that might have been practiced outside the borders of Sparta all along. He makes the point that it is foolish to assume that if we all stop believing in God and the afterlife society will crumble into murder and chaos; in his vision, everyone will be more committed to living life and the humane side of humanity will win out as long as we do not have religion causing all of the war and the division. This of course leaves out the tribalism that existed between cultures untouched by western religion or any organized theocracy, not to mention the usual conflicts over food, clothing, shelter, land, water, physical appearance, language, and loyalty to sports teams. With or without religion, there will still be patriotic fervor and the haves and have-nots as Darwin would agree.
I have not yet seen Ben Stein’s documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, but the seven minute trailer I saw on Youtube easily explains the hatred it has provoked from critics. That film seems to stew in its own brand of smugness for the other perceived side in these debates. I don’t know if Intelligent Design is behind the creation of the universe, or the world, or the known world, but I do know that some intelligence of design should go into constructing a documentary. It would also be prudent. The film as advertised seems to build up concern over a vast conspiracy to stack the cards against religion and portray all belief as radical or dangerous and a threat to science. Yet if such a threat is known then the filmmakers might have been mindful enough to keep their message subversive and allow the viewers to draw their own conclusions from whatever is presented. As it stands, if Intelligent Design continues to lose ground in classrooms, its advocates might have to content themselves with having a stranglehold on the content of broadcasting and film via lobbies and networks desperate to keep sponsors.
Is the world or Life, the Universe and Everything the result of Intelligent Design? I don't know. Even the works of Douglas Adams were reportedly often dashed off in bursts of last minute stream of consciousness writing sessions with his editor waiting for the pages. The argument for genus as proof of God is dismissed easily, since a Mozart could have existed with or without supernatural inspiration. But when it comes to that something appearing without previous revision I can't help think of Mozart's written notes with no corrections in their first and only draft. The work of Dawkins however has no excuse for having any holes of logic because he seems to choose his words carefully and preface anything with a context and he is very articulate. Judging by his live interviews he can also think on his feet, but he may have arrived at many of his views through trial and error via his scientific process. Despite his appreciation for ignorance as a necessary food for the process of new discovery, he absolutely has his mind made up and this rather unscientific starting point can tend to suffocate the reader or listener.
I certainly wouldn't have the "cheek" to write off Dawkins and his wife as idiots. Much of the bible is wrong, and atheists aren't really hurting anyone. They're not bombing anything that I know of, and if they are surprised to find an afterlife I expect any God worth worshipping wouldn't send them to hell for being sceptics. They would simply slap their foreheads as God tells them the punchline and wonder why they didn't think of it. But in the end I think it would be more fun to meet Mel Gibson.
Always one or two cheeky things to incorporate. Or exclude. Putting words into the mouth of a Jesus character can be dicey.
I’m reading a book by atheist Richard Dawkins which is quite precise in its exploration of semantics. But before I get into what he says or doesn’t say, let me bog down explaining what I mean. When I say he I mean Dawkins, and when I attribute a comment to him I could also mean one of the many quotes from others he is using to support his arguments. On one hand it uses a quote that slams anyone who confuses a use of the word God as guilty of high treason and on the other giving a free pass to Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein for repeatedly referring to God while at the same time apparently meaning “the God of science” which is not the image usually invoked or understood in common language. Usually Dawkins is precise with his own word choice, or at least he keeps telling us that he is. And since the question of God and science predates many of the people using the term God to mean something other than supreme being, one would expect more from those geniuses.
In my ignorance as a Catholic which apparently means I have below average intelligence, I had been willing to accept that if we believe in a God then science would not be isolated from him, her or it because God would have created science, Natural Selection, Charles Darwin, et all. But much time is spent on the passionately held rules where supposedly theories of the supernatural should not be held up to the scrutiny of existing science. I'll admit I do not know for sure that an ovum could be split on its own and double its chromosomes to 46 and begin the process of gestation without the introduction of a sperm, so I wouldn't presume to engage on the topic of virgin birth. But I would expect a scientist to at least mention that hypothesis. Much of the book might make one's eyes glaze over, especially the insistence that the big bang was minor compared with the "big crunch" which imploded another previous universe in order to create the stuff of the bang. That is at least funny, even though it is arbitrary and stalls on the eventual discussion of a point where there had to have been nothing before the beginning of something. It leaves the passionately frothing-at-the-mouth insistence that crunch is a better word than bang, and apparently as for how Natural Selection works chance is dismissed by Dawkins but luck is mentioned often. So chance is superstition and silliness but luck is an element of science and reason.
To support Natural Selection, which I have nothing against, this book states that it is illogical to demand that every stage be covered and explained and gives the example of a security camera that records every stage of a crime. To defend Intelligent Design one might make the same claim, so the standard seems to be lowered where convenient for Dawkins. This leads me to say something a little mean: It's easy for a Darwinian disciple to hide behind the skirt of science as a banner thought mode and take credit for the efforts of those who are curing diseases, but ultimately the reverence for Natural Selection isn't much of a specialisation for a scientist. It appears to be the least useful form of science, as speculative as what may well be the mythology and magic that it purportedly opposes.
Dawkins has a vested interest in Darwinism, perhaps more so than the rest of us. He has a level of zeal for his school of thought that could be called religious, because it does bind him back to itself. Instead of a tenured professor and brilliant author the impression one gets from listening to the book on a set of unabridged CDs is one of defensive runt with sand kicked in his face buy the theologians. The bully thing comes up frequently, even to the extent of suggesting the experiment where we substitute the word jew or communist or witch with “atheist.” At the same time, when someone suggests that a matter cannot be answered by science but can be left up to the theologian Dawkins is bitterly dismissive of that area of study to the point of comparing a theologian to a janitor. This doesn't stop him and his wife (Dr. Who's Lalla Ward) from later referencing Theologians who support some of their claims.
I must say that a recent interview I caught on TV Ontario allowed Professor Dawkins to come off as less hostile than in the reading of his own book which is as chilly and condescending as his friend Douglas Adams was whimsical. Additionally, as his wife interjects quotes throughout this teamwork gives me two impressions. While she does break up the listening experience so that we remain engaged by the vocal changes, the stuffiness and smug formality is uniform and it plays like two people forming a united front or a tag-team – a ploy which would be more redundant if their arguments were more persuasive. Much time is devoted to speculating about the secret popularity of atheism throughout history and current society as if it has to be popular to be right.
They are quick to call critics of their favourite theories on "cheek" and yet constantly insult God believers at every turn (usually somewhat justified, but they have no right to expect a lack of cheekiness, edge or smugness in return as their own life's work is peed upon). In Natural Selection, just who is doing the selection? Is improbability a science, or is it a leap of faith? Certainly the zeal which drives this reading of The God Delusion is no less a closed system than many religions. Believers are easy targets in that The Bible and other holy books do not stand up to close scrutiny and those points of Dawkins hit home easily. But the distinction between chance and Natural Selection gets very tedious, like a joke that could have used a rewrite by buddy Adams to become funny. Dawkins allows that the tiny changes in all things over time are small improbabilities. Then he hinges much of his belief system on the idea that no complex organism can exist which hasn't changed from a less complex form and only the sudden appearance of a creature that has never evolved or changed would satisfy him that there is a God. He also states that if there is a God he would have to be complex. How is that statement scientific? If simplicity is the natural result of profound thought, why wouldn't God be simple? Why wouldn't a God be like so many of the great ideas, where we slap our foreheads in embarrassment and wonder why we didn't think of something so obvious?
In his TV interview, Dawkins was asked his opinion of charitable acts and how they fit into Darwin’s model. He agreed that he had no explanation and that he was happy we have risen beyond our Darwinian history in those cases. Great save, except that it assumes that charity and looking after the ill are traits new to humanity and not something that might have been practiced outside the borders of Sparta all along. He makes the point that it is foolish to assume that if we all stop believing in God and the afterlife society will crumble into murder and chaos; in his vision, everyone will be more committed to living life and the humane side of humanity will win out as long as we do not have religion causing all of the war and the division. This of course leaves out the tribalism that existed between cultures untouched by western religion or any organized theocracy, not to mention the usual conflicts over food, clothing, shelter, land, water, physical appearance, language, and loyalty to sports teams. With or without religion, there will still be patriotic fervor and the haves and have-nots as Darwin would agree.
I have not yet seen Ben Stein’s documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, but the seven minute trailer I saw on Youtube easily explains the hatred it has provoked from critics. That film seems to stew in its own brand of smugness for the other perceived side in these debates. I don’t know if Intelligent Design is behind the creation of the universe, or the world, or the known world, but I do know that some intelligence of design should go into constructing a documentary. It would also be prudent. The film as advertised seems to build up concern over a vast conspiracy to stack the cards against religion and portray all belief as radical or dangerous and a threat to science. Yet if such a threat is known then the filmmakers might have been mindful enough to keep their message subversive and allow the viewers to draw their own conclusions from whatever is presented. As it stands, if Intelligent Design continues to lose ground in classrooms, its advocates might have to content themselves with having a stranglehold on the content of broadcasting and film via lobbies and networks desperate to keep sponsors.
Is the world or Life, the Universe and Everything the result of Intelligent Design? I don't know. Even the works of Douglas Adams were reportedly often dashed off in bursts of last minute stream of consciousness writing sessions with his editor waiting for the pages. The argument for genus as proof of God is dismissed easily, since a Mozart could have existed with or without supernatural inspiration. But when it comes to that something appearing without previous revision I can't help think of Mozart's written notes with no corrections in their first and only draft. The work of Dawkins however has no excuse for having any holes of logic because he seems to choose his words carefully and preface anything with a context and he is very articulate. Judging by his live interviews he can also think on his feet, but he may have arrived at many of his views through trial and error via his scientific process. Despite his appreciation for ignorance as a necessary food for the process of new discovery, he absolutely has his mind made up and this rather unscientific starting point can tend to suffocate the reader or listener.
I certainly wouldn't have the "cheek" to write off Dawkins and his wife as idiots. Much of the bible is wrong, and atheists aren't really hurting anyone. They're not bombing anything that I know of, and if they are surprised to find an afterlife I expect any God worth worshipping wouldn't send them to hell for being sceptics. They would simply slap their foreheads as God tells them the punchline and wonder why they didn't think of it. But in the end I think it would be more fun to meet Mel Gibson.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)