“bubba” in the comments forwards this photo:
Until next week
I won’t do any blogging for the next week, so I have collected these items to make up for the lost time. Those lower down are links to older articles I had never had gotten around to posting.
I got most of links from these news sources:
Arts & Letters Daily
SciTechDaily
BusinessDailyreview
Public Relations on the cheap:
PR on a Low Budget: Combine 3 Tactics for Peak Impact
A long-awaited “Star Wars” role playing game is set to be released for the Xbox this month:
Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic
It’s set 4000 years before the movies, though.
How to become a disastrous boss:
7 Habits of Spectacularly Unsuccessful Executives
US companies can now officially be sued for defending themselves against criticism:
Supreme Court paves way for trial on Nike’s free speech rights
A bubble bursting?
Gartner says Wireless LANs fair way away
Working overtime to make mischief:
Virus writers boost output in 2003
Patents granted for somewhat peculiar inventions:
I just might try the “Semen taste-enhancement dietary supplement”.
Future interconnected networks of sensors:
Proposed new airport scanners reveal a bit too much:
Artificial Intelligence (AI) in computer games
Electronic Arts becoming”the greatest entertainment company ever”?
Could This Be the Next Disney?
Bjørn Lomborg and Olivier Rubin review the latest edition of “Limits to growth”
Chris Taylor whose company made the great roleplaying game Dungeon Siege on the Future of PC Gaming
The Spectator on the “savage new religion of celebrity”:
Comedian Jeff Wayne does to Michael Moore what Moore did to Roger Smith:
A great book review by Paul Krugman, from the time before he became a political activist:
An article that claims that Moore’s Law isn’t good for the high tech industry:
A not quite official homepage of the science fiction author Larry Niven:
The hierarchy of High School:
Not So Bright, Not So Liberal II: The Attack of the Atheists
One of our valued readers left, in part, the following as a comment to Jonathan’s earlier post:
Wouldn’t atheists find the assertion from religious people that they are plugged into some cosmic truth through their faith to be smug, arrogant and insulting? But I suppose it’s only a sin if the other side does it. If you do it it’s just asserting the obvious.
I started typing a comment in reply, which had a hostile tone. I deleted it. Then I decided to just leave it there, move on. Then on third thought I decided I would respond. But that comment got out of hand. I then had a fourth thought, the old saying about never arguing with the guy who buys ink by the barrel — “hey, this is my blog, I’ll just put MY response out in the open”. So here it is:
The tone, sir, the tone. The gratuitously insulting tone. We must work on that. Civility is a virtue which we all should have. It is the mortar holding together our pluralistic society. It is the foundation of our priceless civil peace, which is the envy and wonder of the world. So, starting out assuming that someone who disagrees with you has various moral failings is bad form socially and bad citizenship, as well as being intellectually unsound.
I will tell you that the Roman Catholic religion is true. I assert that. I assume the burdens of that assertion. I try to live up to the standards imposed on me by that assertion. This necessarily means that I also assert that contradictory statements are not true. (Incidentally, I certainly don’t think this is an “obvious” truth, so you are wrong about that. It takes some prayer, reflection, experience and study to get there. I’ll also assert that it is worth the effort.)
OK, I did it. I have made a “truth” statement. Pause. Look around. The sky has fallen on neither of us. Nor does that mean I cannot remain friends with people who do not make this assertion, or who aren’t sure, or who don’t want to think about it. There is no inconsistency between my assertion of the truth of Roman Catholicism and my genuine friendship with and respect and affection for those who do not do so. You have a poor, and false, idea of Roman Catholicism if you think otherwise.
We all live, function, act and think based on what we believe to be true. All human conduct is necessarily rooted in some set of premises about what is true. These premises may be well thought out, not thought out, or incoherent, but these premises are there. So, making an assertion that something is true does not present any problem in itself. We all do that all day long, in deed if not in word.
Now, some people may say, “if you cannot show me empirically or by means of scientific, quantifiable measurements, that your religious belief is true, then you may not speak about it.” I reject this. I reject the proposition that someone may engage me on a life or death matter, in fact a life-after-death matter, and say that I must accept that person’s truncated and false view of the world and of humanity and of what constitutes relevant evidence, all as some kind of ground rule for having a conversation. That strikes me as smug and arrogant, to use your adjectives. Someone initiates a conversation with me and insists that certain relevant matter is off limits, ab initio? Sorry, dude, Lex don’t play that.
Now, if the tone of religious believers whom you have met has been “smug, arrogant and insulting” that is a bad thing. That is not how it is supposed to be done. Christianity is supposed to be about love, charity, patience, understanding, service, humility, etc. It’s in the New Testament in a bunch of places. You can look it up. Also, many people down the centuries have actually approached this ideal, some of whom we know as saints, most of whom are known only to God. I have found that this approach is far more common among sincere believers, even among those Christians who think my Catholicism will damn me to Hell, than anything like what you describe. But, hey, you had some bad experiences. Sorry about that. But I repudiate your judgement of me based on your experience with some unknown third parties. I refuse to be included in whatever group of people you had a bad experience with. And I reject your categorical lumping of religious believers into some pejorative category. And I am mystified that you think anyone with any self-respect would just knuckle under to such overbroad and, frankly, bigoted statements.
Anyway, we believe in open and even hard-hitting free speech on this blog. But let’s treat each other with respect. Our model should be the old Victorians like Lord Acton, Cardinal Newman, Mill, James Fitzjames Stephen, Gladstone, all of whom were engaged from time to time in debates pertaining to religion in one way or another, and all of whom fought hard for their causes, all of whom threw hard oratorical punches, but who did not sink to personal rancor or insult the intentions of their opponents — whom they assumed to be serious men seriously engaged with serious matters, at least as an initial presumption.
In closing, I will say that the truth or falsity of Catholicism or Christianity or Islam or religion generally is NOT what I particularly want to discuss in this forum — though I have decided and I daresay well-founded views on these questions. My fellow ChicagoBoyz have their own divergent opinions and I don’t want to use this blog as a soapbox for my views on these issues, which are very serious ones, where their views may differ to a major degree. We have enough to talk about on this blog where we either agree, or might have a shared interest, or where we will have grounds for constructive disagreement. But if someone insults me or my religion, I may choose to respond, depending on what I deem appropriate under the specific circumstances.
Not So Bright, Not So Liberal
There’s been some discussion on blogs about this column by one of the Anglosphere’s deep thinkers. The idea is that atheists should call themselves “brights” as a way to distinguish themselves and to intellectually one-up those benighted believers.
This is a bad idea and won’t fly. Many Americans are religious and would reasonably take offense at the clear implication of the word “bright” as used in this way: that religious people are stupid. This point, and the likelihood that even many atheists would prefer to avoid conveying such sneering disrespect for alternative views as use of this word, in this context, conveys, are going to make a lot of people reluctant to use it. And if it doesn’t catch on here it isn’t likely to become a standard term in the way that “gay” has.
But I understand why people who hate religion would try to convince everyone else to use a term such as “bright.” Its use forestalls argument by assuming a conclusion — a conclusion that it asserts up front as though it were as obviously valid as someone’s name, and how dare anyone challenge it. (Are atheists bright? Yes, they tell us so themselves.) You have to wonder about the judgment and intellectual confidence of people who try to gain adherents to their position by using verbal sleight-of-hand rather than rational persuasion.
“Bright” has been compared to the aforementioned “gay,” but I think a better comparison is to the word “liberal” as it is used in the U.S. to describe political orientation. Americans who call themselves liberals are really socialists. But socialism doesn’t sell here, so American leftists play word games to avoid defending their positions via straightforward arguments in which they would be at a disadvantage. They use “liberal” in the same way as Dawkins uses “bright” — to avoid dealing with opposing views on the merits. Ask what liberals believe, and why, and you are likely to receive a circular response asserting that since the word “liberal” implies tolerance and love of freedom, people who call themselves liberals must favor these things, and therefore (it is implied) if liberals support something it must be favorable for tolerance and freedom. Thus, for example, the American Left favors racial discrimination as long as leftists are in charge of it and do it out of self-declared good motives. This doesn’t seem very liberal to me, but they keep telling us that it is, and since they are “liberals” who am I to object? This is a neat trick, and lots of people still fall for it (though less so over time, as leftists’ increasing use of the word “progressive” in place of “liberal,” presumably in response to how their own actions have discredited liberalism, suggests).
Band Practice
We had a band practice for the first time in 13 years on Saturday. We had three out of four of us. I’m the singer. I’ll go to my grave amazed that talented people are willing to put up with me. But, hey, count your blessings. I guess I add something. Boyish enthusiasm, maybe. Our drummer played guitar at the practice, which he’s actually better at these days, and since his drums have been at someone else’s house for some number of years. He showed up nattily attired in a Ramones t-shirt. I had my Eyeliners t-shirt on. Our monstrously good guitar player, who can take five notes you whistle and turn it into a rock song, is in New York now. But we decided to just get started despite age, fat, decayed skills and absence of our best guy. The goal: twelve songs, 25-30 minute set performable somewhere in Chicagoland sometime reasonably soon. In other words, we aint in any hurry. We’re all keepin’ our day jobs. We decided we’d try a bunch of covers, and as we got going on that we’d maybe see if inspiration struck for some new originals. We’ll resurrect a few of our old originals as a last resort. We rehearsed “Don’t Push Me Around” by the Zeros, “Cesare Said” by Buck, “Everything’s Geometry” by cub (which I’m not sure works with a guy singin’ it …), “Spare Change” by the late, great Chicago all-girl band Bhang Revival. We took a swing at “Pancho and Lefty”, which may not work out, though I still have hope for it, it is such a good song. And we did a shorter version of our old cover of Ace Frehley’s cover of the Rolling Stones’ “2000 Man”. So far so good. I drank Pilsner Urquell throughout, which worked well for me. My kids sat on the basement stairs and watched this whole thing, with unreadable expressions. They seemed to like it OK, once they got used to it. They are stuck with a “weird” Dad. Could be worse. At least we have health insurance.
If this band ever actually plays out, I’ll announce it here. Road trip to Chicago. All ChicagoBoyz readers can crash on my living room floor. Ha. Just kidding.
(I see there are two copies of our ancient vinyl 7 inch ep, only 5 Euros! Woo hoo!)