Tuesday, March 30, 2010

A Musical Soapbox

80 comments
This is truly a rant. Your indulgence is humbly craved.

If you know me much, you know the soundtrack of my life consists of symphonies, operas, oratorios, string quartets and other delicious things. But for the life of me I can’t quite see why that isn’t the case for everyone else — and that’s what I’m going to rant about.

Before I plunge in, I had best describe my own musical background. If you are skimming, this is a good section to skip.

How I Discovered Classical Music

I grew up hearing scraps of the Beatles, a few soundtrack-like hits (things like Hawaii Five-O and Dueling Banjos), and whatever oldies were played back in the 90s. I had occasional exposure to a 5 CD set of random classical works, but I rarely listened beyond Rimsky-Korsakov’s Flight of the bumble bee.

At about the age of 12, I decided that I loved James Horner’s soundtrack to Universal’s animated film Balto. My mom graciously purchased a reasonably priced copy on eBay, which quickly became my mainstay of background music for playing with Legos. (I still have the same stereo I did then, come to think of it.) Mom, perhaps annoyed with the repetition of what I considered 43 minutes of heaven, trucked in the 5 CD boxed set of classical music into my room, suggesting I listen to some other music too. I dutifully accepted her offering. Memories returned of wanting to like the Dance of the Reed Pipes from The Nutcracker, but shunning the impulse — liking ballet could hardly be masculine, my childish mind reasoned. At one of my sister’s ballet recitals, I fell in love a short dance from Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake. A complete recording shortly made its way into a BMG Music order. From there, it was not very difficult for me to see what I liked was something special.

My appreciation of a couple other forms of music (rock, jazz, rap, pop, etc.) seemed to vary inversely to my love of older compositions. Today my recollections of my friend and I thinking the Backstreet Boys emotionally affecting fill me with blushing shame. What was going on there??? Now I can barely listen to Phantom of the Opera with my stomach churning. I assume this is a personal problem. At least, that seems the easiest answer.

Perceptions of Something I Just Don’t Like

In my journal entry for January 19th, 2010, I reflected,
Which is worse, listening to rock CCM or watching football? The former, naturally, as the latter, rather than making you want to commit a mild act of violence, prompts the desire to do something that in some way stimulates the brain. This last desire is a good one, better [however] without such inducement.
It doesn’t take a psychologist to divine that I do not take a sanguine view of rock music. Dear me, I still have problems appreciating Stravinsky, let alone the far less sophisticated writings of various rock (and jazz) artists, as they are so quaintly termed. Gladly would I endure 15 minutes of a football broadcast if it meant forgoing 15 minutes of hoarse women, incorrigible drum players, and screaming “Are those men?”-quartets. (Those of you who have magnanimously deferred to my obstinate predilections have my heartfelt thanks — I do notice.)

The funny thing is that people decide of their own accord to hear this sort of thing. What I sometimes accidentally see on Amazon’s main music page leads me to believe that people actually buy recordings of some of this stuff. How could you want to hear that — again? I just don’t get it. Perhaps Richard Bonynge, conductor-husband of one of my favorite opera singers, understands better:
Richard Bonynge: If [audiences] want something modern, they’ll go to Broadway, but even the Broadway pieces that have success are as old-fashioned as they can possibly be. The idiom is almost 19th century with a bit of beat behind it, that’s all.

Interviewer: Is “rock” music?

Joan Sutherland: Don’t ask me that.

RB: I don’t think we’re in much of a position to say because we don’t know much about it. It doesn’t appeal to us very much, but it certainly appeals to a great many people, so there must be something about it. It’s primitive and very easy to listen to.

JS: Not for me it’s not! It’s taxing, sort of bang, bang, bang, bang...
My feelings align more with Joan Sutherland than Richard Bonynge, but the latter does have a point. He must, or else 90 percent of radio stations would be playing classical music (which, by the way, in its widest sense makes up the vast majority of music in existence).

What am I missing? Rock music makes me feel like I should be getting a headache. (It rarely gives me one, as I am generally impervious to the normal headache stimuli.) Is it enjoyed simply because it’s fashionable? Because people like their sappy dollar-store “Jesus Music” (sorry) because they just don’t know any better? Are they afraid of being elitist? Is it because I’m elitist? What is it?

But what really puts the icing on the cake for me is that they are rejecting one of the most delightful things God has allowed man to create.

What They Give Up

What great pleasures people forfeit! There is such greater, more glorious music written to God’s honor than that which airs these days. John Stainer’s Crucifixion, Sullivan’s Prodigal Son (set verbatim from various bits of scripture), anything by Bach, Handel’s Solomon (and a myriad of other Biblical oratorios), Mendelssohn’s Elijah, Tchaikovsky’s Moscow Cantata, Berlioz’ lovely setting of a religious poem by Thomas More — and this doesn’t even begin to cover secular music!

I’ve heard many of the excuses. “Classical isn’t my thing,” however, doesn’t cut the mustard. This is the musical equivalent of saying, “Oh, I’m not fond of cooked foods.” There is such a vast variety of music tritely labeled as “classical,” that an all-encompassing statement of preference shows either insanely narrow tastes or limited musical experience.

The latter seems more likely: Our culture does hardly anything to encourage the love of great music, as much as it uses it subliminally. Sure, instances of positively portrayed opera singers are on the rise, but it is still an uphill battle. Think of how many people will consciously name a bel canto aria as a favorite song, much less know what bel canto even is. Nevertheless, I believe that if people realized how much classical music they inadvertently heard—and even enjoyed—they would take a more favorable view on this subject. Indeed, some of the most pleasant classical music of the last 80 years has escaped much biased criticism by innocently advertising itself as a part of the soundtrack genre.

The Biblical Approach

What frustrates me perhaps the most is that I cannot come up with a solid Biblical response — in my favor or in theirs. (I attribute some of this to my yet insufficient knowledge of the Scriptures.) Well, there is I Corinthians 14:40:
But all things should be done decently and in order. (ESV)
However, as unpleasant as rock music is, it cannot be denied that it has some sort of order. There’s the guilt by association argument, which I think holds some water. Though we often forget it (unlike some rock artists — eek), a fair number of classical composers were less than saints, which opens up a whole new can of worms (which I won't open here).

Some people say the beats in rock, et al. are inherently bad. That could be, but there was a time that opera was considered an unrighteous form of entertainment to be shunned by anyone with a conscience. Still, whether they were wrong does not affect whether people today are wrong about the beats, though it certainly calls for closer inspection.

Paul tells us not to be caught under the influence of anything that isn’t God. Some describe the potentially darkly sensual effects of rock, et al. and tie it to Paul’s admonition. I know too little to offer an opinion.

Tapering Off

I have fumed enough on this matter, but it wouldn’t hurt if to focus some of the above:
  • I’ve come to love classical music without being prodded
  • I don’t understand rock, pop, jazz, rap, country (did I mention how little I can stand country music?)
  • I don’t understand why people don’t like other kinds of music
  • I’m frustrated that I can’t formulate a satisfactory Biblical answer in either direction (or another direction I have not considered)
Help me understand!
In truth I could pursue this painful theme much further, but behold, I have said enough.

Self-Evident Truths Vs. Self-Defeating Lies

3 comments
You know what really churns my butter? People who challenge truths we hold to be self-evident. One of these recent challenges (which really isn't so recent, so much as it is prevalent today) is against knowledge. We can't really know anything for sure. Truth is what we make it to be.

Okay. But if that's the case, how can we know that we can't know anything for sure for sure? (i.e. how can we know for sure that we can't know anything for sure?) How can we know if that is true? Is the statement "truth is what we make it" true or false? It seems it matters no longer, because it has become something that it isn't.

That is, these challenges have become lies we hold to be self-defeating.

Saturday, March 27, 2010

Al A. Gore-ically Speaking...

1 comments

We have a problem on our hands. Consider the following fable:

A DOG, used to eating eggs, saw an Oyster and, opening his mouth to its widest extent, swallowed it down with the utmost relish, supposing it to be an egg. Soon afterwards suffering great pain in his stomach, he said, "I deserve all this torment, for my folly in thinking that everything round must be an egg."

Moral: They who act without sufficient thought, will often fall into unsuspected danger.*


Since when have scientists ceased to think—actually think—through their claims on Global Warming? Have they stopped checking themselves and begun assuming that it must be so? Since when have scientists ceased to have their "findings" cross-checked by other acclaimed scientists? Is this science? If so, abandon your posts you biologists! Flee for your lives you physicists! Run while you still can you astronomers! Your foundations have been utterly shaken by the earthquake of reason! The wind of reality has toppled the towers of your lofty ideas! The tide of truth has overtaken the walls of your "evidence"!

The inconvenient moral: scientists who do not incorporate thoughtful philosophy into their worldview will ultimately find themselves in a fix—a fix far worse than if global warming were real.

*http://aesopfables.com/cgi/aesop1.cgi?1&TheDogandtheOyster

Wisdom or Wackiness?

3 comments
Welcome to the first edition of Wisdom or Wackiness, the game where one raver posts a questionable quotation and every raver critiques it, labeling as Wisdom, Wackiness, or Both.

Have a go at this one:

“All human actions have one or more of these seven causes: chance, nature, compulsion, habit, reason, passion, and desire.” – Aristotle (384-322 BC)

Friday, March 26, 2010

When Zombies Attack the Naturalist

3 comments

You know what’s worse than beating a dead horse? Beating a dead human being that just won’t die.

Okay, okay. So the zombie fetish hasn’t quite had its fill in Hollywood just yet. However, what’s quite interesting is that zombie’s do exist. Consider: “But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness.”* Isn’t it odd? We are dead. We are living. We are dead and we are living. Sounds like a zombie to me. But that’s a simple answer for the Christian. The naturalist just won’t bring himself to admit it.

So this begs the question: are we truly what the naturalist says we are? Are we truly nothing but a blob of complex grey matter, a simple intricate collection of cells and bone? Are all our logical thought processes the simple result of electrical impulses crossing over synapses? If so, how can it be that it is so complex, intricate and logical?

C.S. Lewis is quoted as having stated that we are not a body. We do not have souls. We are souls. We have bodies.

No, we cannot see souls. No, we cannot see spirits. And that is the bane of the naturalist. His sense experiences will carry him only so far. He cannot see what the super-naturalist sees. And he cannot experience what the super-naturalist experiences. But he insists we are unscientific! He thinks he is beating a dead horse.

I like to think that he’s beating a dead zombie that just won’t die. It makes me feel better….

*Romans 8:10

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Aliens

1 comments
You know what really grinds my gears? People who believe in aliens. I will approach this topic from three different worldviews: Biblical, Evolutionist, and Agnostic.

A Biblical Worldview

For a Christian, the belief in extra-terrestrial life (in reference to other intelligent beings, a.k.a. little green men, not simple microorganisms on Mars or wherever) is unnecessary. If there are any sort of extra-terrestrial beings out there in the wide universe, they do not have souls; they are not created in the image of God. They cannot be saved and live with us in heaven.

This is because God's plan of the fall and redemption of mankind is for just that - mankind. The Bible makes no reference whatsoever to any life outside of the planet earth and in understanding the panoply of Scripture, God is concerned with human life on this planet. I am not saying that He is not concerned with anything else besides human life on this planet, but in terms of the fall and redemption, He only works with human life on this planet.

A view which would see alien life as sinless (so they too could participate in heaven) would be ridiculous. Angels fell, man fell, why would aliens not? If a sentient being is not God, that being is fallible and will fall. God's justice would then demand a price to be paid for the sins of aliens. Some do theorize that Jesus went to other planets to be a sacrifice for other beings as well, but this is a complete twisting of Scripture. Even more, it is an absolutely nonsensical addition to Scripture which is completely without merit.

If there are alien beings out there, they are animals - lesser creatures than man. And I do not see God's revelation to us making room for the existence of life on other planets. If God wanted to make microorganisms or animals on other planets that's His business (although I hold this is unrealistic.) Regardless, it would take a fanciful imagination to assume that God is dealing with life outside planet Earth.

An Evolutionist Worldview

This is actually the least likely worldview to allow the existence of aliens. The evolutionist first has to say that life can spring from non-life. Even though they do unfortunately hold this assumption, they then have face the astronomical odds against this happening naturally. (Setting aside the fact that the odds of this happening are simply zero, they at least have to face the overwhelming odds against this happening, regardless of how much time the universe has provided this opportunity.)

Even though it happened to come about on this planet, as they claim it has, it would have to happen again on another planet for alien life to be possible. If life originated on some other planet and the organisms were somehow hurtled through space to earth and other planets, and that is why beings can exist on multiple planets, then evolutionists would say that the common tendency is for simple organism to evolve and adapt to their environments - in a universe which all things tend toward chaos.*

Simply, if there are aliens on another planet, life sprung from non-life on that planet as well, defying even more astronomical odds, and the beings evolved. The concept of there being aliens on other planets, especially little green men which can travel to ours, the possibility that the unbelievably impossible odds of spontaneous life were defeated multiple times, is thoroughly laughable. Going several steps forward, things like Star Trek and Star Wars which have multiple intelligent races have to be kept strictly as science fiction. That this would have to even be said in today's world is regrettable.

*The craziness of a species adapting to environments toward greater complexity is another topic entirely - maybe someone else here would want to tackle it some day. How many generations of dogs thrown into the ocean will it take for them to finally figure out how to grow gills? I know the evolutionist would say that gradual adaptations into gradually changing environments is how it was done, but simple reason can still shoot down the concept of macro-evolution. That, however, is not the purpose if this post.

An Agnostic Worldview

For the purposes of this topic, I will consider an agnostic as one who believes that there could be divine out there, but not necessarily the God of the Bible. The general belief in mysticism, ghosts, angels, gods, and such - this way, anything is possible. Everything from the world resting on the back of a turtle, the Greek pantheon of Gods meddling in human affairs, Scientology, a careless creator who set evolution into order, etc.

It is in this view that the possibility of aliens is actually completely reasonable. Not only is it reasonable, it would be unreasonable to figure we humans are the only intelligent beings in the universe. Star Trek and Star Wars might as well be possible. This is obviously because the gods could go on creating new life to their hearts' content.

Conclusion

I know more reasons can be given by others to support my view. But in summary, it is unreasonable for a Biblical worldview to entertain the existence of aliens. It is also unreasonable in an evolutionist worldview. Only in an agnostic worldview is the existence of aliens any shade higher than practically impossible.

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

The Constant Cause of the Cosmos

2 comments

What is it exactly that holds the universe together? Well, evolutionists and naturalists will claim “Not God.” Christians and theologians will say “God.” From a scientific point of view, we know that the world, the universe, and everything in it is made up of elements. My body is made up of smaller objects known as cells. What keeps those cells together? “Well,” says the naturalist, “Those cells are made up of molecules.” Okay, so what holds those molecules together? “Well,” says the evolutionist, “Molecules are held together by smaller particles known as atoms.” Interesting. But still, what keeps those atoms (which are mainly filled by empty space) from flying apart and dispersing in the air? “Well,” says the nuclear physicist, “Atoms are held together by smaller particles called quarks.” Fascinating! And what holds those quarks together? “Well,” says the astronomer, “We don’t actually know. We speculate that there is something called Dark Matter which holds the universe together.” Hmm…. Okay, given the assumption that Dark Matter exists, what is it made up of and how does it hold everything together and how is it held together?

We are met with silence. We don’t know.

But it certainly is not God.

Professing to be wise they become fools, for it is the one who says in his heart that “there is no God” who is the fool. Whatever means by which the universe is held together, from the largest super-cluster filament of galaxies to the smallest particle in the visible universe, God is in that means! And no, it is not ridiculous to say that God holds everything together by the word of His power. It is more ridiculous to say that everything is held together by its own power. We cannot explain what holds the smallest particles together, but instead of being convinced by the power of God we advocate for smaller particles that hold those particles together, and those particles are held together by smaller particles, which in turn are held together by even yet smaller particles…

And then somewhere down the line, we find turtles….