Natural Law

In a previous post, I posed a brilliantly simple reconciliation of science and religion, but it turns out that I was beaten to the punch to the tune of 64 years with a nearly-identical thesis by none other than Albert Einsten.

For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.

In a speech given at The Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in 1941, Einstein traces this misapprehension to the reliance on what he terms a personal, anthropomorphized god, and the notion that religion needs a god, especially this sort of god:

During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old conception of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfilment of their wishes.

[...]

To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.

But I am persuaded that such behavior on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task. (This thought is convincingly presented in Herbert Samuel's book, Belief and Action.) After religious teachers accomplish the refining process indicated they will surely recognize with joy that true religion has been ennobled and made more profound by scientific knowledge.

"A doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on makind, with incalculable harm to human progress." This sounds strikingly similar to a Richard Dawkins polemic which I posted in June:

The creationists’ fondness for “gaps” in the fossil record is a metaphor for their love of gaps in knowledge generally. Gaps, by default, are filled by God. You don’t know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don’t understand how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don’t go to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don’t work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries for we can use them. Don’t squander precious ignorance by researching it away. Ignorance is God’s gift to Kansas.

... Not quite as conciliatory as Einstein, but he makes the same point. Returning to Albert, I'm also a little surprised at the self-effacing bravado he demonstrates by saying

In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself.

That's gutsy, but ultimately correct. Einstein's notion of religion is much broader than could be tolerated by most of today's Christians. He focuses on the larger, nobler pursuit and purpose, and basic necessity of religion, a nexal point it shares with science that necessitates both ideas. He's right.

Amazing.

The Base

Maybe my beef isn't with the Republican party, but with many Republicans themselves - what is called the party's "base." What follows (use bugmenot to log in) is a concentrated form of what's wrong with the party, and America at large:

The demographics of the GOP also make a hard-right run tempting. Recently, pollster Tony Fabrizio has been asking Republican voters whether their most important goal "is to promote individual freedom by reducing the size and scope of government and its intrusion into the lives of its citizens" or "to promote traditional values by protecting traditional marriage and the life of the unborn." In his most recent survey, 34 percent of Republicans take the freedom position and 49 percent take the values position.

Eye on the ball, guys! You're so caught up in your vapid religious fervor that you've lost sight of the most important tenet: freedom. Liberty - remember that stuff? Noooo..... it's far more important to make sure everyone behaves as you want them to. Dependancy on the state is a small price to pay to "spread the word of God."

I hate evangelism and Evangelical/Charismatic Christianity, as its results make no concession for personal responsibility or public conduct. And its music sucks. Yesterday on Talk of the Nation with Neal Conan, Joe Lieberman said:

I think that most people in public life, and I will speak of myself, I've found that if you're honest about who you are, people respect that. Even if who you are may involve some religious practices that are different from the ones that they have. But ultimately I come back to what I said earlier: When you're in public office, your responsibility cannot primarily be to your faith, or the doctrines of it, it has to be to the Constitution, to the interests of the country.

Sen. Joe Liberman, an Orthodox Jew, plainly states on national radio that the government cannot be beholden to the religious views of its officials, but to the interests and freedoms of the governed, and he's right. Real evangelism is practiced through living one's life as it would please their God, a life which will improve the lives of those they encounter. The New Right's evangelism of coersion, litigation and legislation which politically-activated megachurches across the country now employ is a dangerous, evil, and fundamentally wrong disposition of their faith's power to persuade, which is at the same time the result of a demonstrably unpersuasive and intellectually unsatisfactory set of beliefs. Their efforts at converting the unconverted haven't worked well enough using traditional methods, so they now write laws to control the acts of individuals.

The new base feel that only jurists who will overturn Roe v. Wade are suitable for the bench, that only Presidents who are "true believers" are fit to govern. In truth, the new base of the Republican party let their doctrine hijack the agenda - an agenda which now eclipses liberty and subjugates the governed. What would happen if the Administration nominated a homosexual to an appointed position? That would be fun, but also completely outside the realm of possibility.

To the New Right I say this: Your Messianic Complex is an outrageous corruption of the human spirit and the power to govern. The legacy of your "faith" is now going to be bigger government and higher taxes, with less liberty available to all. You will have achieved what LBJ and Ted Kennedy never could. All this simply for your charismatic religious comfort, to aid in your "Mission." You sicken me. Go to South Carolina. Or better yet - go to Iran. You'll be much more comfortable there.

We need Newt back.

West Wing on Intelligent Design

The West Wing
Season 7, Episode 4
"Mr. Frost"

Clifford Reynolds, English teacher: "Do you believe that the theory of Intelligent Design and the theory of Evolution should be taught along side each other in the public schools?"

Matthew Santos, Presidential Candidate: "Absolutely not. One is based on science and one is based on faith. Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, it is a religious belief, and our Constitution does not allow for the teaching of religion in our public schools."

CR: "Many of us here would be more comfortable if our children were taught all points of view."

MS: "And I'm all for that. Evolution is not perfect - doesn't answer every question - but it is based on scientific facts: facts that can be predicted, tested and proven. Intelligent Design asks theological questions. I'm sure that many of us would agree that at the beginning of all that begatting, something begun. What was that something?"

CR: "Congressman Santos, many of us want a version of science taught to our kids that's in accordance with our beliefs."

MS: "I understand. But can't we agree that the inclusion of non-scientific explanations into the science curriculum of our schools misrepresents the nature of science? And therefore compromises a central purpose in our public education, which is the preparation of a scientifically literate workforce."

"If you have a problem with your child's education, get involved. If you have a problem with what the school board wants to teach, run for the school board. We can never forget that the best way to preserve our democracy is to take part in it."

---

"... The inclusion of non-scientific explanations into the science curriculum of our schools misrepresents the nature of science..." I've never heard it phrased better. Wouldn't it be cool if we all had screenwriters following us around?

Incidentally, have you seen ABC's "Commander in Chief?" ...Terrible.

Putting the "Duh" back in Fundamentalism

No, not the Islamofascists - it's the reliably indignant Christian Reconstructionists (also known as "Dominionists" - see sidebar) up to their wiley tricks again! Their latest idea is to move all of the most faithful and least educated of the land to South Carolina to set up a theocracy in God's graven image. Why not - it gets them that much further away from me. Normally I wouldn't waste your valuable time posting a link to this sort of thing, but because of one of their bullet points, I feel it belongs on this blog (emphasis mine):

• Abortion continues against the wishes of many States
• Sodomite marriage is now legal in Massachusetts (and coming soon to a neighborhood near you)
• Children who pray in public schools are subject to prosecution
• Our schools continue to teach the discredited theory of Darwinian evolution
• The Bible is still not welcome in schools except under unconstitutional FEDERAL guidelines
• The 10 Commandments remain banned from public display
• Sodomy is now legal AND celebrated as "diversity" rather than condemned as perversion
• Preaching Christianity will soon be outlawed as "hate speech"

Why must these people continue to assert science education as their bailiwick? Shame on us, poisoning our children's minds with factual analysis and testable hypotheses. It has to be difficult to live in a world where logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence is taught, and your cherished, if backward, fairy tale account of life's origin isn't.

We should give them South Carolina, just like we should give violent criminals, um... North Carolina, for its convenient placement next to South Carolina. The Palmetto State should serve as the fundies' own hate-filled Hammurabian commune, so that they could cast aside the completely discredited theory of Evolution, in favor of the monumentally reliable story of Creation, and found their own hypersensitive, provincial, abhorrently intolerant, authoritarian nation, just like God says. It's in the Bible - somewhere, I'm sure.

Fundies, South Carolina is yours - you deserve it. And it's a good thing there are no gay Christians, especially in South Carolina. Because if there were, you would have to recast your doctrine to accommodate tolerance, forgiveness, and a less-than-intransigent-and-bigoted interpretation of the Bible, and that would be an affront to your First Amendment rights, or something like that.

I honestly fail to see the problem with this

Apparently, burning the bodies of Taliban fighters is a taboo thing. I ask: Why shouldn't we desecrate the dead of these vile people? Hell, parade the bodies around town! Festoon them with Big Mac wrappers and plant an American flag in their torsoes, rightfully designating them as our conquered property. An Israeli flag would be even more fun, but that could be construed as going too far. At very least, we should flush a few Korans down the toilet, and then decapitate the captives in the fashion of which they are most fond.

If only...

Furthermore...

Gods were responsible for lightning until we determined natural causes for lightning, for infectious diseases until we found bacteria and viruses, for mental illness until we found biochemical causes for them.

God is confined only to those parts of the universe we do not know about, and that region keeps shrinking.

By the way...

Intelligent Design has no testable hypothesis.
Intelligent Design can make no predictions.
Intelligent Design explains nothing.

I feel it needs to be said every so often.

Nixon

Big-Government "Conservatism" is fiscally worse than any Liberalism we've had... Yesterday at the world's finest magazine, Nick Gillespie reprinted the findings by American Enterprise Institute analyst Veronique de Rugy concerning discretionary spending increases over the first five years of all two-term Presidents since LBJ. All are official OMB figures, all are adjusted for inflation:

LBJ: 25.2%
Nixon: -16.5%
Reagan: 11.9%
Clinton: -8.2%
Bush: 35.2%

"Nixon: Now more than ever."

Music Test

You have three hours to successfully complete the following exam, if you want to call yourself a musician:

1. Explain the difference between sforza, sforzando, sforzata, and La Forza Del Destino. Be specific.

2. Redesign the traditional cup mouthpiece to permit greater endurance, a larger sound and effortless altissimo register. Explain why your design is better than contemporary models.

3. List Johann Sebastian Bach's male and female children. Include their dates of birth and death (if deceased), middle names (if any), last known address and Social Security numbers.

4. Name all of the composers who wrote a First Symphony and notate the opening theme of each of those symphonies.

5. What is the relationship and musical significance of the 10th and 11th bars of the aria "Soldaten, Soldaten" to the aria's final bars (1048-1063) in the Alban Berg opera "Wozzeck"?

6. Who conducted "Tannhauser" at the 1847 Bayreuth Festival? Was he right or left-handed?

7. How many members of that orchestra were Jewish? Name them. (A Trick Question).

8. Trace the development of the "Family Unity" theme in Richard Strauss's "Sinfonia Domestica". In which key(s) is it presented?

9. Describe in detail the formula for the varnish on violins made by Stradivari during the first third of his career. Explain how this varnish differs from the varnish used on his violas. What modern substances could be effectively substituted in duplicating this formula today?

10. What is the optimum acidity/alkalinity (expressed in pH) for soil in which cane for bassoon reeds may be grown? For bass clarinet reeds? For Alto clarinets? For Artie Shaw?

11. Name and describe the bones and muscles involved in forming a brass player's embouchure.

12. What are the advantages of using xylophone mallet heads made of a.) Ebony, b.) Teak, c.) Philippine Mahogany, d) Stale marshmallows

13. Argue both sides of the following statement: "The most important element in music is rhythm." Critique both arguments and decide which is correct, or more nearly correct. Compose a three-movement symphonic metamorphosis (not to exceed 1 hour in length) on a theme by Ned Rorem to support your decision.

14. Defend Mozart's use of the glass harmonica and explain why this instrument has lapsed into disfavor, especially among Latin bands and Punk Rock groups.

15. Give the "Slap-Back" time in seconds (to three decimal places) of each hall used by all major American and European orchestras. Defend your selection of each orchestra as a "major" orchestra and name each orchestra's past and present conductors.

16. In which of his symphonies did Franz Joseph Haydn use a.) Clarinets, b.) Horns, c.) Bassoon, d.) Slide Whistle, e.) Theremin

17. Write out the first 25 bars of Stravinsky's "Circus Polka". Watch those key changes!

18. What is the Kochel number of Mozart's 4th Horn Concerto? Why didn't he write a fifth?

19. Develop a simple set of general rules that explain the harmonic and melodic progressions, voice leadings and rhythmic notation of the music of Bartok and The Macarena.

20. Give the ratio between the bore and overall length of a Couesnon Contra-Bass trombone, Model G-571a, when the slide is in flat 4th position. If the position is used in conjunction with both thumb valves (F and D) to play the 7th note of the overtone series, what note will be sounded? Will it be sharp, flat, or in tune? If sharp or flat, by how many hundredths of a semitone?

21. Who invented the Ocarina? In what year? Why?

22. Explain the musical inconsistencies as to key, notation, accidentals, etc, found in the original score of Robert Schumann's Symphony #3.

23. Write a seven-voice motet in the style of Orlando di Lassus in invertible counterpoint. Ten Extra credits if the motet can also be performed backwards. Twenty Extra Credits if it sounds better that way.

24. Using materials commonly found in the kitchen, construct a 15 rank, 3-manual positiv organ (with pedals) and use it to perform two pieces by Oliver Messiaen.

25. Reconstruct the missing movements of Schubert's Unfinished Symphony.

26. Give the Russian, German, and Serbo-Croatian equivalents of the following Italian terms: Tuffato, Con Amore, Cadenza, Fugato, Garbonza, Mafioso, and Fuggedabowdit.

27. Explain why the jazz-influenced pieces written by Ravel, Stravinsky, Poulenc and Berstein didn't swing.

28. Now that Preservation Hall is under 8' of water, will real jazz continue to exist?

29. Because of the lack of electricity to power Rock Bands in the Coastal Regions of the Southern United States, will the local populations be the first in America to regain their hearing? Defend your position.

30. Rank the following items in order of importance as far as the long-term effects of their invention concerned the destruction of melodic music and explain why:

1. Bagpipes
2. Country/Western bands
3. the Amplified Guitar
4. Stephen Sondheim
5. Mantovani
6. Kenny G
7. Florence Foster Jenkins
8. Arnold Schoenberg
9. Darlene Edwards
11. Jack Benny
12. The Monkees
13. Nancy Sinatra
14. William Shattner

--
Thanks Brett.

"Author Of America"

I've added a for-real hardcover book to the "Worthwhile Reading" sidebar: Thomas Jefferson: Author of America by Christopher Hitchens. After I saw him give George Galloway a much-needed shallacking on the September 23rd episode of HBO's Real Time with Fidel Castro, I picked up his newest book at the Grand Junction Borders en route to Southern CA (pictures to come shortly).

It's fantastic. The most enjoyable read I've had this year. He distills Jefferson's biography (and to this point I didn't think such a feat was possible) to the salient events and motivations of his life, and actions and achievements of his administration. Even the book's tangents prove to be delightfully pertinent. Hitchens's first blockquote of the book is from Jefferson's final letter, addressed June 24, 1826 to express his regrets for missing the then-upcoming 50th anniversary celebration of the Declaration of Independence. Excerpt:

"May it be to the world, what I believe it will be (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all), the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. That form which we have substituted restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. These are grounds of hope for others. For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them."

It's one of those rare quotes that clarifies this nation's purpose and inspirational objectives in such a way that itself inspires. If those noble ideas remained the focus of Independence Day today, rather than the celebration itself, or if they even could claim their rightful place at the center of American rhetoric still, I think there would be a greater base of public understanding for our need to successfully deliver democracy to where it is needed most, and to extend all liberties too all citizens, especially those of our own country.

Hitchens later states:

"He [Jefferson] trenchantly restated the view that the American Revolution was founded on universal principles, and was thus emphatically for export. He laid renewed stress on the importance of science and innovation as the spur of the Enlightenment, and scornfully contrasted this with mere faith and credulity."

He also interjects the famous Lincoln quote:

"All honor to Jefferson: to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so to embalm it there, that today, and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of reappearing tyranny and oppression."

The author doesn't shie away from the hypocrisy of Jefferson's repeated assertions of inalienable human rights and his ownership of slaves; in fact he discusses it throughout the book. But, upon introducing the issue, he dispenses with its controversy in a very satisfying manner:

"... It would be lazy or obvious to say that he [Jefferson] contained contradictions or paradoxes. This is true of everybody, and everything. It would be infinitely more surprising to strike upon a historic figure, or indeed a nation, that was not subject to this law."

I've already babbled more than needed, but it suffices to say that I recommend this book as an engaging (and brief) read. It's worth the $20.