Matt’s Week in Dork! (12/15/13-12/21/13)

    Other than getting out to see a movie with Ben on Sunday morning, I spent much of this week either at work, or half passed out on my couch.  The holidays are not a good time for anyone who works in corporate retail.  And I’m no exception.  Physically and emotionally brutalizing, it’s left me with little ambition but to snack and veg in front of the TV, wishing I could sleep.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug:  The second film in the unnecessarily overblown adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s classic fantasy novel for kids is OK, but not as tight or dramatically packed as the Lord of the Rings trilogy of films, or even as much as the first Hobbit film.  It’s still watchable, and as I’ve brought up several times with friends, I really like Peter Jackson’s take on the setting, and would be completely willing to come back every few years for a new entry.  A Silmarillion trilogy?  I’m there.  Children of Hurin?  Sure.  Those words scrawled on napkins and receipts and backs of business cards that Christopher Tolkien keeps mining to release new books?  Yeah.  I’ll watch movies of those, too.  I also don’t mind the addition of characters this film features.  It doesn’t get in the way, and provides for some elements of surprise.  And as with Jackson’s other adaptations, the spirit remains true, even if the exact content doesn’t (often for the better…Tom Bombidil, I’m looking at you…or more importantly and thankfully, I’m not looking at you).  I have three basic complaints about the film, and none of them are deal breakers.  First, there is some serious tightening to be done in a few spots.  Second, and related, several action scenes go on for far too long and aren’t especially well done.  None are as unneeded and poorly executed as the canyon chase from Jackson’s King Kong (a movie I otherwise love, but that scene...oh, man...), but they could be trimmed/cut for the better of the whole.  And last, but not least, the end credit song is bloody awful.  I don’t love the credit songs from these movies, overall.  But this is the first one I straight-up dislike.  The singer sounds like ass and the song is far, far too modern.  It doesn’t work.  So, this second Hobbit movie is, as expected, more of the same; and I’m OK with that.  With about 20 minutes cut out, mostly from the action bits, it would have been much better.  Well, maybe cut some of Orlando Bloom and his weird CG'ed face.

Man of Tai Chi:  An OK movie about a young, impatient student of Tai Chi who becomes a sensation in the world of underground, illegal fight clubs.  There’s some kind of conspiracy, an intrepid police officer, and a shadowy villain in the form of Keanu Reeves.  Nothing ground breaking or amazing here.  But there are some pretty good fights and I always like seeing Karen Mok in a non-comic role.  It’s not that good, but it’s worth a watch if you’re in the mood for a fight flick and don’t have anything in mind.

Gargoyles:  I have to give ‘em credit for making the attempt.  And the movie doesn’t play out in the way you expect from something like this.  The monsters are just sort of matter of fact, showing up and doing their thing, without much mystery or magic.  But the movie is also not all that exciting.  It is never able to rise above its made for TV look and feel.  I don’t know that it’s a good idea, but this feels like it could use a remake.  Del Toro?

"Technically, I'm a Grotesque."

Upstream Color:  Featuring hot foley artist action, this well prepared plate of What the Hell? is brain-breakingly weird.  Like the best independent science fiction films, it demands careful thought, conversation, and likely repeat viewing(s).  What’s going on?  Who’s the pig farmer-foley artist?  What are the secrets in the pages of Walden?  What the heck did that guy pull out of that woman?  And did he put it in a pig?  Darned strange, and demanding.  And beautiful.  Fascinating.  I guess I can’t be too surprised that this is from the guy who did Primer, probably the best time travel film ever made.

    In the middle of the week I finished Sam Harris’s new book, Lying.  Like his book, The Moral Landscape, it sure gives plenty of food for thought on living a better life, both for yourself and those around you.

A Matter of Life and Death:  A darned peculier, but also darned fine film from the little spoken of masters Pressburger and Powell.  It’s kind of hard to talk about the film, at least in a sense of its story or plot.  What I can say is that it’s gorgeously shot and makes interesting use of Technicolor and black & white.  In many places, the film feels very modern, while in others very much of its time.  And it’s all profoundly British.  Highly recommended.  This should be seen.

The White Dove:  A surreal film, in many ways almost a silent film, The White Dove is filled with interesting images and crazy experimental sounding music.  I love the sequences with the artist as he tries various means of expressing himself.  I don’t know that I ever understood the stuff with the girl on the beach, though some of it was beautiful.  Where was the wheelchair bound kid’s parents?  I don’t know.  Overall, nice to look at, and generally pleasant.  But also darned odd.

Byzantium:  Vampires suck.  They’re boring and played out.  However, this movie is enjoyable, thanks in large part to the cast and direction.  It feels rooted in Hammer Horror, dripping with Gothic atmosphere, but not cheesy.  It’s a fascinating movie and very pretty to look at.  This would probably make a good companion film to Let the Right One In (or the remake, Let Me In).

The Seventh Seal:  Probably Ingmar Bergman’s most famous and popular film (Stateside, anyway), this Medieval meditation on the nature and meaning of life and death is beautifully shot and filled with meaning.  It’s on the strange side of Bergman’s work, but is more approachable than The Magician.

Jaws:  Though this movie never features on my favorites lists, nor is it a go-to watch, every time I do catch it, even in part, I’m reminded of just how darned good it is.  The characters, the tension, the little human moments; it all comes together.  The relentless, almost supernatural horror of the shark, lurking always under the surface.  Intense.  In some ways, this movie reminds me of The Thing.  Partially it’s the seclusion, but it’s also the group of unique men, thrust together and forced to deal with some unprecedented horror.  And like The Thing, there are lots of moments where the actors are able to raise the film above what’s in the script.

-Matt

Book Review: Lying

    I like to be challenged.  People might not think that about me, because I have a strong inclination to resist change and my suspicion of fixing things that don’t appear to be broken is quite deep.  But it’s true.  I like to be challenged.  I think that’s why I found myself genuinely enjoying reading Nietzsche (for fun, not for a class or something).  And I’m sure it’s why I developed a fondness for the forthright and provocative works of Christopher Hitchens, Penn Jillette, and Sam Harris.  I first encountered Harris through various web videos of debates and speeches, often on the subject of religion and the rejection thereof.  But by the time I found him, that was no longer a challenging subject for me.  He may have helped me find better ways of saying what I meant, but I had already come to terms with my lack of belief in the supernatural.  Where he began to challenge me was in his book The Moral Landscape.  In my gut, I’d never felt right about some of the moral relativism that my 80s-raised mind wanted so much to hold on to.  Something didn’t sit right when it came to justifying barbaric acts in the name of cultural sensitivity, standing silent when I knew in my very bones that something evil was afoot.  And with The Moral Landscape, Harris challenged my thinking, and helped me forge that discomfort into a more coherent and I hope productive way of looking at the world.

    With Lying, Sam Harris has challenged me once again.  As a general thing, I consider myself an honest person.  I suppose most people do, but I have a long standing tendency to call it as I see it (not necessarily as it is) and to play as fair as I can with folks.  Admittedly, I’ve often used silence as a means of avoiding saying truths that might put me in socially awkward positions.  But generally, I’ve tried to be an honest person.  Or so I thought.  Reading Lying, I see that, while on a spectrum, I might be on the honest side of the middle, I still perpetuate our culture of lies.  I’m not a disciplined person.  I’m not going to lie here and say that I will be embracing a strictly and more thoughtfully honest life from this point forward.  It’s not that I don’t think it’s possible (though it would be difficult as I did grow up Catholic, where honestly, especially with oneself, is not generally well received or encouraged).  It’s that I know myself well enough to know that my commitment to being more thoughtful and honest will not be as deep and conscientious as it should be.  Still, the book challenges me to be a better person, and to think more about the damage that lies, even so called ‘white lies’ can do.  I do think that going forward, I will be more careful about telling the truth, more apt to avoid even those socially lubricating fabrications.

    The idea of living in an honest society, a conscientiously honest and straight-forward world, absolutely appeals to me.  And the goal Harris seems to have of shifting our cultural mindset in that direction is an honorable and important one.  Lying seems like the sort of book that should be read by as many people as possible, but probably won't be read by those who could be most served by it (like The Moral Landscape).  Being in business, I can see the need for this book in the business community.  But the medical, governmental, educational, and other arenas could all use a healthy dose of self-reflection and positive reinforcement of honest speech and behavior.

    The book, originally an e-book, now comes in a hardcover edition which features a Q&A between Sam Harris and Ronald A. Howard, a man who was a huge inspiration in Harris’s own quest to lead an honest life.  The two discuss various aspects of lies and truths, and the potential pitfalls and benefits.  In addition, there are questions from readers of the e-book with responses by Harris.  The book itself is quite short (42 pages), with the appendixes bringing it up to 95 pages, plus a few more pages of notes.  But while the book is short, I think there's a lot to think about within its pages.  Again, coming from the business world, this is a heck of a lot more useful and important than something like the oft lauded Who Moved My Cheese.  Whatever your career or lifestyle, I would recommend taking this challenge.  Read Lying, and think more about the truth and lies in your life, how they effect you, the ones you love, and society in general.

Lying
Author: Sam Harris
Publisher: Four Elephants Press
ISBN: 978-1-9400-5100-0

-Matthew J. Constantine

Book Review: A Manual for Creating Atheists

    You hear it all the time.  “Faith is a virtue.”  “You’ve just got to have faith.”  “Without faith there is no meaning.”  Peter Boghossian disagrees.  He takes great pains to separate the term ‘faith’ from the term ‘hope.’  And to clarify what atheism is.  Faith is the belief in something without evidence for that something, or ‘pretending to know things you don’t know.’  Whereas, like me, he sees atheist as meaning ‘there is insufficient evidence to belief in X deity.’  It isn’t a dogma or a belief system, just as a Buddhist doesn’t have a specific set of beliefs about there not being a Thor.  With this book Boghossian provides some handy hints on how to deal with those who claim to know things they don’t have know.  Unlike some before, he does not target religion, which he sees more as a social structure, but faith itself.  The root cause, and not the symptom.

    As he puts it, ‘faith claims are knowledge claims,’ statements about how things are (the world is 6000 years old, lightening was sent from Zeus, the Emperor of Japan is a god, Muhammad rode a flying horse, etc.), thus must be treated as such.  And when they are baseless, they must be challenged.  He also calls out relativists, who claim that other cultures either can’t or shouldn’t be subject to judgment or challenge.  Like Sam Harris, he makes the case that relativism isn’t a path to success.  Pluralism, the coming together and peaceful coexistence of many cultures is good, multiculturalism, having different rules for different peoples is bad.  Many ‘academic leftists’ seem to be willing to accept absolutely anything in the name of tolerance.  But both Boghossian and Harris have called them out on this sort of behavior.  If you claim that throwing acid in a little girl’s face or shooting her in the back of the head because she tried to read a book is OK, then you’re either A) delusional or B) profoundly evil.  And excusing this sort of thing because it is consistent with someone’s religion is immoral.

    Like Sean Faircloth in his book Attack of the Theocrats, he also calls out religious exemptions from the normal rule of law that applies to everyone else.  Be it taxes or bad behavior, too often faith based groups are given a free ride and legal protections they should not have.  But we are constantly bombarded with the message that criticizing faith is tantamount to racism and other egregious behaviors.  Because, as Boghossian says, ideas are now given a respect they shouldn’t have.  Attacking a person should be wrong, but attacking an idea should be encouraged.  Ideas deserve only as much respect as they can retain under assault.

    Boghossian takes on many of the common arguments for faith and against atheism, from the Kalam Cosmological Argument to Pascal’s Wager.  He gives categories for where people are on their journey away from faith, from those who have never been exposed to alternate ideas to those who are questioning, and beyond.  He doesn’t suggest that with one or two questions, one can make someone abandon years of indoctrination, nor necessarily should they.  But by presenting Socratic questions, by making a person take a moment to examine why as much as what they believe, you may have done a lot to break the spell.  As he brings up, while many people’s journey to faith is quick (a traumatic experience, for example), people’s journey away from it is often long and carefully thought out.  I think of my own, and I know that the journey away from faith for me took a very, very long time.  There were fitful leaps, but the whole process must have taken more than twenty years.

    Boghossian also encourages us to read up on various schools of thought.  He suggests reading the works of religious scholars like William Lane Craig and peddlers of what he terms ‘deepities’ like Deepak Chopra.  Listen to what others say, question them, challenge them.  Don’t insult the person, don’t try to make a person feel dumb or small.  Just be that voice of descent.  Ultimately the journey away from superstition and faith is a personal one, and should be encouraged and nurtured, but not forced.  And of course, don’t pretend to know what you don’t know.  Not knowing is perfectly OK.  Knowing that one doesn’t know is the beginning of the journey.  And in a life without faith, the journey is what it’s all about.  At least, that’s what mine is about.  I can’t speak for others.

A Manual for Creating Atheists
Author: Peter Boghossian
Publisher: Pitchstone Publishing
ISBN: 9781939578150 (I read this as an ebook)

-Matt

Book Review: God is Not Great

“Credulity may be a form of innocence, and even innocuous in itself, but it provides a standing invitation for the wicked and the clever to exploit their brothers and sisters, and is thus one of humanity’s great vulnerabilities.  No honest account of the growth and persistence of religion, or the reception of miracles and revelations, is possible without reference to this stubborn fact.” -page 161

    It was the success of this book that first made me aware of Christopher Hitchens, though it was various footage of him in debates and readings that made me really take note, made me a fan if you will.  So, it is a bit odd that I’ve only just gotten around to reading God is Not Great, after his autobiography Hitch 22, his massive collection of essays Arguably, his book about the process of death by cancer Mortality, and others.  The book stands as a kind of clarion call for people of reason to shake off their placating politeness and collectively call BS on the aggressive, pervasive, divisive, and morally bankrupt purveyors of the ultimate bait-and-switch scheme, religion (you give me money and power now, and when you’re dead you’ll get some vague reward).  And as you might expect from Hitch, it is full of wit and rage.

    As usual, he spares no fool.  Be it the media monster and champion of suffering (not for those who suffer, but for their suffering) Mother Teresa, or blowhard fools like Pat Robertson, or imams, priests, and charlatans of all stripes, he is on the attack.  And he uses the greatest tools of the trade.  He uses evidence, history, logic, and the most damaging weapon of all, the words of the holy texts and of their followers.  Is there a book more obviously cobbled together, disjoined, and nonsensical than the Bible?  Well, perhaps the Koran.  Both draw heavily on the Torah, which is itself a patchwork mess.  Claims of historic merit are at best dubious, and more frequently patently fraudulent.  Connections to historic places and people are often wildly inaccurate or incongruous, but that doesn’t stop the faithful from dubbing them proof of authenticity.  And when considering how many generations (frequently centuries) after the supposed events anything at all was written down, can even those less than air tight connections be seriously considered.

“Who--except for an ancient priest seeking to exert power by the tried and tested means of fear-- could possibly wish that this hopelessly knotted skein of fable had any veracity?” -on the horrors of the Old Testament, page 103

    Reading the Bible, the Torah, The Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, or any text with spiritual lessons or claims of the divine, it should be obvious to all but the most painfully unaware that these books are as much the product of humans (men, specifically), as the plays of Shakespeare, the poetry of Homer, or the music (elevating as it may be) of Beethoven.  The rampant bloodletting, petty local squabbling, complete lack of understanding of the world outside of the knowledge of the original readers, and total lack of knowledge of the workings of the world and greater universe should make perfectly clear that there was no mystical revelation, no angelic dictation, just the fevered imaginings of savage men bent on power and scared of death.  No amount of rape, theft, child murder, genocide, or general awfulness is too much, it seems for the righteous.

“If one must have faith in order to believe something, or believe in something, then the likelihood of that something having any truth or value is considerably diminished.  The harder work of inquiry, proof, and demonstration is infinitely more rewarding, and has confronted us with findings far more ‘miraculous’ and ‘transcendent’ than any theology.”  -page 71

    And one can easily compare this century’s UFO mythology with any of the major religions.  It relies on vague stories, shoddy evidence, faulty logic, esoteric writings, and an understanding of the universe that relies on faith instead of reason.  And, like the major profits of old, heavenly forces reveal themselves to illiterate yokels on the fringes of society or beyond.  In a world full of well read, literate people, beings wishing to bring their ‘truth’ to the world find people of limited resources and capability.  That’s just poor planning.  Like with the concept of Intelligent Design, it requires that these cosmic forces are either cruel and deviant devils, or blind idiots (I guess a creature evil enough to make people in a specific way, only to condemn them for being that way might be F-dup enough to put the eye together backwards, put too many teeth in our heads, and have waste come out of our mating organ).

“Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar.  They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace.  But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse.” -page 67

    I’ve always liked talking with, or listening to people much smarter and well read than myself.  Gleaning wisdom and knowledge, and finding new books to read or what have you.  Reading Hitchens feels like sitting down to great dinner conversation, and it’s led me to check out many things, and will continue to do so (one of these days I’m going to try Wodehouse).  But it was pretty sweet when he referenced a book I’d actually read already.  I think it’s the first time outside of one of his book reviews (for a Harry Potter novel) that it’s happened.  I read Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus: the Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why several years ago.  A fascinating book.  It was like listening to Dennis Miller back when he was funny (remember the 80s?) or the boys on MST3K, when you manage to catch an especially clever or obscure reference, you feel just that bit more cool, even if it is only for a moment.  Whenever I read Hitchens I feel like I’m learning something, but I also feel inspired to go out and learn more when I’m done.  That is the mark of a great teacher, and I’ve been lucky enough to have many of those (only a very few of them involved in my formal schooling).

    Lest one assume Hitchens only chastises and takes to task those religions more familiar in the West, he does go after several Eastern religions, like Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Confucianism, etc. with both barrels.  Whether exposing the awful hypocrisy of the hereditary horror-show that produced the Dali Lama, or the cult of the god-king that produced the famous kamikaze and was supported by the Buddhist mainstream in Japan, or the sectarian violence between Hindu and Buddhists that still grips Sri Lanka to this day.  And he addresses a couple of the most common attacks on atheism, the Nazis and the Stalinists.  Getting past the problems with the Nazi argument (like that most Nazis were practicing Christians), both Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia were more like theocracies than any kind of ‘secular’ state.  They did not attempt to suppress religion so much as replace it with a worship and obedience of the state.  He goes into some depth about the complicity of various churches and religious organizations in the creation and maintenance of these monolithic states, including the support of the Catholic Church for several fascist regimes, including Hitler’s Germany (though he does mention some of those few who stood up, including Catholics, to those same evils).

“But an extraordinary number of people appear to believe that the mind, and the reasoning faculty - the only thing that divides us from our animal relatives - is something to be distrusted and even, as far as possible, dulled.” -page 198

    Perhaps his most bold, but in a way most important question (and chapter title) “Is Religion Child Abuse?” looks into the effects of religion, both physical and psychological on children and on the adults they become.  Not just the obvious stuff like institutionalized sexual abuse or genital mutilation, but the more subtle things like telling a kid his grandfather is in hell, suffering for an eternity, because he was a different religion.  Or of course, racism, the ancient partner in crime of religion.  I remember hearing constantly throughout my Catholic upbringing that those evil (fill in the blank with Protestants, Satanists, Homosexuals, etc.) tried to ‘get you while you’re young.’  And I remember even then thinking, ‘wait, isn’t that what you’re doing, too?’  And of course, it was.  The best way to produce adults who believe in this mumbo-jumbo is to force them to believe it when they’re too young and malleable and credulous to turn away.  Otherwise, if you let children get to the point where they’re more rational, there’s almost no way they’d believe much of the crazy stuff written in the various holy texts.  They’ve lived long enough to spot a con, to know a lie, to see a fantasy.  And they’ve certainly lived to the point where getting the tip of one’s penis cut off or vagina sewn up doesn’t seem like a good idea.

“This is not the result of a few delinquents among the shepherds, but an outcome of an ideology which sought to establish clerical control by means of control of the sexual instinct and even the of the sexual organs.  It belongs, like the rest of religion, to the fearful childhood of our species.” -discussing the horrors of circumcision, mandated celibacy, and sexual repression, page 228

    Though not my favorite book by Christopher Hitchens, nor his most readable, it is a worthy effort and hopefully a conversation starter.  It identifies what he believed to be the great enemy facing humankind, calls it out, and gives it a sock on the jaw.  The book works as something of a call to action for all those who feel that religions of all stripes have a lot to answer for, if not a lot of answers.  And that the denial of reality one must embrace in order to believe in the supernatural is inherently damaging to us as individuals and to society as a whole.  That morality and ethics exist in spite of (and some times as opposed to), not because of religion.  The greatest gift that Hitchens, Sam Harris, Penn Jillette, and Stephen Fry, among others have given people like myself is a sense of community and hope.  We are not alone in our desire to leave behind the damaging and stultifying beliefs of our ancestors in order to create a more just and viable future.  That the way to live need not be dictated by squabbling illiterates who lurked in the deserts of our distant past, but in rational exploration of the world that is.  There are others out there like me, who found no answers to the questions that really matter in myth anthologies written by greedy savages, or in the expectation of rewards and punishments in the hereafter.  I constantly hear people talk about how silly, strange, or unfounded the religious beliefs of other peoples are.  But these same people can’t see the silliness in their own.  My hat is off to the late Hitchens for pulling back those curtains just a bit, and shedding light on a great many shadowed things.

“Yet again it is demonstrated that monotheistic religion is a plagiarism of a plagiarism of a hearsay of a hearsay, of an illusion of an illusion, extending all the way back to a fabrication of a few nonevents.” -Page 280

God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
Author: Christopher Hitchens
Publisher: Twelve
ISBN: 978-0-446-57980-3

-Matt

Book Review: The Moral Landscape

“In my view, morality must be viewed in the context of our growing scientific understanding of the mind.” -from page 198

    Sam Harris has some fascinating ideas, and isn’t afraid to challenge the reader on preconceptions.  With a conversational style, he presents his thesis in an approachable format.  Sadly, like so many calls to action, those who most need to be convinced are those who will either a) not read it or b) not allow themselves to understand it.  However, his assertion that morality can and should be studied in the same way we would any other branch of science makes perfect sense to me.  As has happened before while reading Harris, I find that his words express my own thoughts in ways I have been unable.  It’s both frustrating (because I should have been able to articulate my thoughts) and liberating (because I see them more consciously and conscientiously reasoned than I ever could).  Like reading Christopher Hitchens, I find his books to be so rife with excellent quotes that I could spend hours just scribbling them down.  Or perhaps I should get a second copy and a highlighter?

“It seems to me that we already know enough about the human condition to know that killing cartoonists for blasphemy does not lead anywhere worth going on the moral landscape.”  -from page 75

    As a secularist and staunch moderate, I try very hard to look at things from multiple angles.  I try to see both sides (or more) of a debate.  I try to see things from others’ point of view.  And I have always heard that being tolerant of others’ beliefs was a virtue.  But, over time, I’ve found that tolerance of dangerous beliefs and practices, and turning a blind eye to human misery caused by them is a bankrupt, and ultimately immoral stance.  In the book, Harris sites the book by Steven Pinker in which the anthropologist Donald Symons is in turn quoted (that’s too many steps away for me, so I’ll paraphrase).  Symons says basically that a barbaric act (such as the genital mutilation of a child) when committed by a single person against a single child is a shocking, appalling event.  The perpetrator would be reviled and punished harshly by a disgusted community.  However, this same act carried out in exactly the same way, on a large scale can be excused as ‘cultural heritage.’  As Harris himself points out, conservative Islam is a ‘low-hanging fruit’ when it comes to finding examples of things that (extracted from their cultural/religious context) any sane person would consider …let us say, unconstructive behavior.  But it is hardly alone.  In my job, and in my position as a Dork, I frequently come into contact with anime and manga (Japanese cartoons and comics).  And I’ve been called a racist for pointing out the sexualization and fetishizing of children (not to mention the persistent rape fantasy) that runs rampant in the art and writing.  People I consider sane, honest, caring human beings (and especially women who otherwise show every sign of being modern, feminist, free-thinkers) become genuinely upset when I point this out and say that I’m unfair, often attempting to gloss things over by dropping some hints of ‘cultural differences.’  I don’t buy it.  If these same acts were illustrated or animated in an American film, these same people would be the first to condemn it.  Or in the Catholic Church (my own upbringing, from which I actually have little but fond memories), there is the well documented endemic corruption, sexual abuse, and culture of suppression on a level that might best be described as ‘Biblical.’  Yet even the more sane and even handed adherents to the faith seem unwilling or unable to face, much less address the issues.  With that core-deep rot still festering, any talk about it by outsiders is still seen as unfair targeting and intolerance.  Well, yes, I’m intolerant of the sanctioned abuse of children and the systematic occultation of truth in pursuit of maintaining the fallacy of moral authority.  And getting back to that ripe and 'easy pickins' fruit, shooting a little girl in the head because she dared to read is wrong.  I don’t care what collection of fairy tales you get your marching orders from, it’s wrong.  And if you think being born in a different geographic region or to parents to read a different set of myths is enough to justify that kind of behavior, you’re wrong, too.  Anyway, back to the book…

“Doubt about evolution is merely a symptom of an underlying condition; the condition is faith itself--conviction without sufficient reason, hope mistaken for knowledge, bad ideas protected from good ones, good ideas obscured by bad ones, wishful thinking elevated to a principle of salvation, etc.” -from page 175

    Mr. Harris’ discussion of ‘answers in practice’ vs. ‘answers in principle’ is very important, and a distinction that he rightly points out is often misunderstood.  I can’t tell you how many times people have said, ‘well, if there is no God then how do you explain [fill in the blank].’  Often, the explanation is fairly simple (the idiot Bill O’Reilley’s ‘tide goes in; tide goes out’ statement could be explained away by a child of 10 without much difficulty…it’s the Moon, dumbass!) but others might be extremely complex or dealing with subjects I don’t know much of anything about.  Because I don’t know the answer does not for one moment mean or even imply that there is no answer.  Nobody can say exactly how many grains of sand there are on all the beaches in the world.  Nobody.  I’m sure a mathematician can come up with a formula to give a ballpark figure, but nobody can tell you the exact count, down to the very last grain.  Yet, there is a number.  There are a certain number of grains of sand, a specific number of stars at this very moment, and a finite number of cups of coffee being pored.  The fact that no one can tell you the exact number does not mean there is no answer.  There is no answer in practice, but still a very real answer in principle.

“We will embarrass our descendants, just as our ancestors embarrass us.  This is moral progress.”  -from page 179

    The basic point of Harris’ book as I see it is once we admit that there is a worst case scenario for the existence of sentient beings and a best case scenario, then we have admitted that there is ‘right’ and ‘wrong.’  That the end of the spectrum closer to the best possible scenario is ‘better’ than the end closer to the worst.  Thus, things that move us up to the better end are ‘good’ and the things that move use down are ‘bad.’  This can be studied with logic, reason, and yes, scientific method to understand what is moral.  He proposes, in a sense, a new branch of scientific inquiry, using neuroscience as a springboard.  We can no longer stand by and let people say that science can’t answer questions about how we should live, what is right, and what we should value.  And we can’t turn a blind eye to things that reason tells us are evil and detrimental to the well-being of sentient beings, in the name of tolerance.  It doesn’t take much investigation to see that the world’s various religions have little to add to the discussion morality, beyond unhealthy obsessions with the minutia of sexual couplings and dietary choices.  It is well past time we turn to the one consistent source of enlightenment and advancement in this world, open scientific exploration.  We cured sickness, extended lives, achieved connectivity on a global level, and reached out to the stars with it.  So, why not use it to find ways to live the best, most fulfilling lives possible?

“Methodological problems notwithstanding, it is difficult to exaggerate how fully our world would change if lie detectors ever became reliable, affordable, and unobtrusive.”  -from page 134

    If I have a complaint about the book, it’s that the introduction and first two chapters feel a bit repetitive.  I felt similar about sections of The End of Faith, where it seemed Harris belabored some of his points, explaining them from too many angles.  Saying the same thing in several, slightly different ways.  But, considering the responses to his books that I’ve seen, a lot of people, even those with enough education and sense seemingly to know better, might have needed it spelled out in even more excruciating detail.  You may disagree with his interpretation of the facts, or with his thesis in general.  But at least pay enough attention to actually know what he’s saying (which I hope I’ve done).  This sort of ignorant criticism always reminds me of an angry review I heard for the film ‘A.I. Artificial Intelligence,’ where the viewer was incensed by the arrival of aliens in the third act.  His anger might have been valid had the third act featured aliens.  The viewer simply wasn’t paying attention to what the dialog clearly explained, jumped to conclusions, and got it totally wrong.  Agree or disagree.  But try to understand what you’re agreeing or disagreeing with.

We're robots, dumbass.  Listen to what we're saying!

“Whether religion contributes to societal dysfunction, it seems clear that as societies become more prosperous, stable, and democratic, they tend to become more secular.” -from page 147

    Some books make me feel good, not because their content is designed to do so, but because of the effort and thought needed to digest them properly.  Like the feeling the body gets after a serious workout, I feel elated, a bit tired, but stronger for it.  Reading Sam Harris is like power lifting with my brain, and I like it.  I was reminded of reading Jane McGonigal’s fascinating book Reality is Broken, which challenged me to look at the world in a different way, and to do something about it.  I’m a working class schlub, but I’m trying to achieve a deeper understanding of the universe, life, my self, and all that jazz.  Understanding and accepting that I am both an animal and a sentient being, the product of hundreds of millions of years of evolution, was a huge step in knowledge both of myself and the greater universe.  I do not fear my insignificance in the scope of the universe, just as I don’t sell short my effect on those around me.  We humans are amazing creatures and we can be so, so much more.  The petty, fear-based scribblings of long dead power seekers need not dominate our future.  Science is a liberator, and I think Mr. Harris is right that the time has come to turn its revealing eye on the way we live and the things we value.  It’s time to get real about reality, to build a better world.

Sometimes I wish evolution was directed.

“The framework of the moral landscape guarantees that many people will have flawed conceptions of morality, just as many people have flawed conceptions of physics.” -from page 53

The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values
Author: Sam Harris
Publisher: Simon And Schuster
ISBN: 978-1-4391-7122-6

-Matt

Matt’s Week in Dork! (11/25-12/1)

    Work continues to take up much of my time, though I’ve managed to get some reading in this week.  I’m getting a powerful itch to do some gaming again, so I think sometime in January I’ll try to host another game night.  It’s been too long.

Ultraviolet:  OK, look.  This is NOT a good movie.  No.  That’s misleading.  This is a really bad movie.  The script is garbage, and about 90% of the cast is almost as good.  Milla, who I love, is dreadful here (imagine her Alice performance from later Resident Evil films, cranked so far past 11 that it seems like self parody).  And Cameron Bright…gah, just looking at that kid makes me feel ill (I have a fear of Renaissance cherubs).  But I love Nick Chinlund and his germ phobia.  And William Fichtner’s sensitive vampire doctor is all teeth and unrequited love.  And I like a lot of the weird future setting.  The more surreal aspects (technology, especially) would have been nice in the MUCH better Aeon Flux.  I gather this film was heavily cut and suffered from studio interference, before release.  I kind of want to see an extended version.  It should be R-rated for absolute sure.  But at the same time, I don’t think another 30 or 40 minutes, even involving character development and ultra-violence, would actually fix it.  And the odd, CG gloss that hangs over everything, like someone went nuts with Photoshop blurring effects is just…weird.  Equilibrium, though extremely derivative, made me think that Kurt Wimmer might be a really strong new voice in science fiction, but this movie brings him down to Paul W.S. Anderson levels.  Not that I wouldn’t enjoy something schlocky piece ever year or two.  But I’d like to see more good stuff, too.

Tinker, Taylor, Soldier, Spy:  As the first generation of Cold Warriors begin to fall to age and irrelevance, a deadly secret resting at the heart of England’s intelligence circles comes to light.  Is there a mole at the highest levels?  Which one of the trusted cadre of old spies might have been selling out to the other side for decades?  It’s up to a discarded old fossil and a young up and comer to find out.  Twists, turns, betrayals of the heart, of country, and of self.  Shadows, glances, and dark allies.  This is the stuff of Cold War dreams and nightmares.  An excellent cast plays a deadly game of chess in the shadow of the iron curtain.  The film does a fine job of recreating the era, from costumes to behavior.  It looks like the stuff of my early days (taking place just a couple years before I was born).

Hanna:  I ended up watching this movie again.  I just really dig the way Joe Wright handled familiar concepts.  Less about the destination, and more about the journey.  The cast, the music, the visuals.  It all comes together.  I wonder what Wright’s career is going to be like.  Mostly costume dramas, so far.  But this shows sign there might be something more.

Mystics of Bali:  “This is good blood!”  The most powerful wizard in the world is just a weird old man…or woman?  He’s like a pervert, shape-changing Yoda.  This movie reminds me how mysticism and mythology are full of really weird, really stupid ideas.  The lesson seems to be, don’t go to another country and learn their forms of black magic.  The bad dubbing and silly dialog should make for fun with friends.  Otherwise, this is a pretty bad flick.

Thirteen Days:  The Cuban Missile Crisis gets a tense, serious, and surprisingly non-sensationalistic take in this Cold War procedural.  The cast does a fine job, the tension is never nail biting, but still palpable.  And it shows most of the characters in a sympatric way, so that even many of the more boorish military types are seen as men trying to do what they think is right.  The dangers of miscommunication and lack of communication are clear, as well as being a slave to the past and expectations.

Rites of Frankenstein:  Poison Ivy as a blind vampire?  Some nice locations accidentally add quality to the film, but it’s still Jess Franco, so it still sucks.  I’m always a little impressed by how bad Franco botches everything he does.  A few good looking ladies.  A lot of boring talk.  A third of the movie is out of focus.  Yup.  Franco.

Franco!!!

Five Elements Ninjas:  “Secret weapons!  You bastards!”  Oh, man.  Right from the start, we’re treated to some classic chop-socky bad dubbing.  And some crazy weapon combat.  I was jazzed right away, because, while I do love hand to hand fighting, I’m generally more of a fan of weapon combat.  And this movie had oodles of weapons clashing.  That said, the barehanded vs. katana fight is all kinds of badass.  A half hour in and I had learned two lessons.  First, fighting ninjas sucks.  Second, taking off a cape and tossing it aside just before a fight makes you look totally badass.  And treating evil ninja-ladies like crap will turn them good and make them love you.  I hear tell that the ninja skill is very elusive, though.  This is probably the most enjoyable Shaw Brothers film I’ve seen to date.  Great fighting, amazing bad dubbing, and a crazy story.  If you enjoy this kind of movie, you’ve got to check this one out.

ParaNorman:  Not quite the kid-friendly movie I was expecting.  Not to say kids won’t like it, but it was more clever and a bit darker/more macabre than I figured.  There are some rather ghoulish bits, lots of surprising turns and some disgusting stuff.  It felt more like a kids/family movie of the early 80s, not as sanitized and non-threatening as most more modern kids movies.

Bored to Death Season 3:  “I do have a lot of sadness.  I’ve been very melancholic lately.”  The final season of this genius show is keeps me wanting more.  Twisted freaks orbiting around each other, self-obsessed monsters trying so hard to make a go at life.  One of the best comedy series I’ve ever seen, but frustratingly short.  Though it’s brevity means it never had time to outstay its welcome.  It’s nice to see a show about people as narcissistic and awkwardly confused as myself manage to get by.

Blow Out:  “You swallow a whole box o’ animal crackers?”  What the De Palma?  Boy, Brian De Palma loves Alfred Hitchcock.  But, Mr. De Palma, you sir are no Alfred Hitchcock.  It’s weird watching a movie where Nancy Allen is supposed to be sexy.  Not that she’s not an attractive woman.  I guess she is.  But she’s always had something of a soccer mom look, not a sex kitten.  And she’s so stupid in this one.  And Travolta is still a goofy bastard.  If there’s a lesson to be learned form this movie, I think it’s ‘invest in some danged curtains.’  Though the film is admittedly interesting looking, with plenty of visual gimmicks, the writing simply isn’t there, the acting is uneven, the music kind of sucks, and the tension rarely never gets very strong, sabotaged as it is by frequent silliness.

It's like the opening of 2001.  Where's the bone?

The Deadly Bees:  Swinging London has a bit of a bee problem.  Seems some strange cat has made an army of killer bugs with which he gives expression to his displeasure.  This feels like something half way between a Hammer and an American International film.  All those UK ‘that guy’ actors you’ll know if you’ve seen much from the era.  Suzanna Leigh is an odd leading lady, kinda weird looking, but kinda cute, too.  What I’ve come to call ‘ugly-pretty.’

    After a long hiatus, I got back into a few episodes of Charlie’s Angels.  Yeah, I know.  It’s not a good show.  But the ladies are beautiful and it’s fun playing ‘spot the future star.’  It’s still tough watching Kate Jackson getting relegated to the van with a turtleneck.  And I got through another disk of Farscape.  Love that show.

Oh, no!  Evil Angels!

    “If it looks bad, don’t look!”  I listened to The Shadow Over Innsmouth audio adaptation.  One of Lovecraft’s most ‘cinematic’ stories, it’s got plenty of mood, action, and a classic twist.  The cast does a good job on this one, even with the New England accents.  They’re not amazing, but don’t sound too far off or forced.  I hope the H.P. Lovecraft Historic Society keeps going with these stories.

    I finished Sam Harris’ book, The Moral Landscape.  There’s some food for thought.  Lots of great quotes.  The guy makes you think.

    And I read volume 4 of Invincible.  Definitely the best super hero comic out there.  And it’s so refreshing reading a book like this, where there’s a unified and consistent vision, unlike the Marvel and DC stuff I’ve been reading.  Stuff that happens changes what will happen later.  And it doesn’t just get written off and ignored every two years.

-Matt