Effect Effects

You know what really misplaces my modifiers? Watching a movie for its CGI effects.

Sure, the extreme geeks who do that sort of thing as a hobby are more or less off the hook, but the rest of us — come on, people. It’s like reading a book for its excellent grammar construction, eating something because it looks good (when you know it’s going to taste bad — like cheesecake), playing a boring video game for its graphics, or listening to a CD because the handsome booklet cover.

—Or listening to music for its chordal progressions. I don’t care about your clever chord combos if the other parts of your music are yucky! Sure, some of the best music contains excellent chord progressions, but they rarely draw attention to that sole aspect — but instead excel in most all aspects. Okay, got that out of my system. Moving on:—

None of these qualities are bad, but are instead generally pleasing. After all, we expect books to have good grammar, food to look good, video games to be fun, and CD covers to be tasteful — but what about when those are the only merits present?

Let’s stick with the grammar illustration: Like grammar, CGI is a fine thing which may be enjoyed in its own right, but when that is all that remains recommendable in a final product, then something is wrong. Take Avatar: Horrible plot-line, leftist propaganda, naked female aliens — however you slice it, a waste of time, money, and artistic sensibilities. Sure, it probably entertains, but so does reading the dictionary (something I need to do more often).

One good thing does not redeem everything else. Hm, reminds me of our music discussion... Anyway, am I off my nut here? Or am I simply missing something?

A Musical Soapbox Revisited

Here’s the final outline:

1) Definition of Music
2) Music: A matter of preference or of conscience?
3) The moral nature of music
4) Should the whole be dispensed with if part is flawed?
5) Rock music
6) The Biblical answer

The points I had before are still there. They just collapsed into different points. No use in discussing the same thing twice, is there? Most of the arguments here are stated in what I hope is a concise form — a sort of springboard for discussion. Well, here we go!


1) Definition of Music

Though we all probably have a similar conception of what music is, it would be advisable to arrive at a definite definition of music. I like what my dictionary had to say on the matter:

music n. 1. the art and science of combining vocal or instrumental sounds or tones in varying melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre, esp. so as to form structurally complete and emotionally expressive compositions 2. the sounds or tones so arranged, or the arrangement of these

Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second College Edition

What do you think about these definitions? I didn’t take time to research them:

sacred music: Music used to worship God. Or does that require a qualifier?
secular music: Music not intended for the worship of God.

2) Music: A matter of preference or of conscience?

The bottom line question here is this: Is music relative or universal? If relative, music is a matter of preference; if universal, a matter of conscience. But even were the latter to prove the case, it cannot be denied that preference plays a part in the selection of any particular acceptable piece of music, leading us to a further question:

Are we hardwired for certain music, conditioned for certain music, or both? I have no definitive answer. (I wonder what my psychology textbook will say on the matter.) Let me give a stab at it nevertheless.

We are hardwired for certain music in as much as our personalities differ, but our experiences further temper those preferences to produce the tastes that we possess. But if music is universal — that is, if it is not merely relative to a person’s conceptions — then cannot music be right or wrong? I would say yes, leading me to a third point:

3) The moral nature of music

My first question: is absolute music moral in nature? By absolute music I mean “Instrumental music that is free of any explicit verbal reference or program.” Examples would be Bach’s Orchestral Suites, Grieg’s Piano Concerto No. 1 in G minor, Op. 13, and anything Vivaldi wrote that was non-vocal and non-Four-Seasons.

So, is it? I would say yes because music constructed in a given way produces a given emotion. That emotion may be elicited to different degrees based on the experiences and opinions of the persons involved. Person A has determined he hates flute music, Person B refuses to listen to opera with an open mind, Person C has decided Japanese music is not his thing. At the core, however, these people would be affected similarly if not identically by the same notes of music apart from associations.

You see, music does not change from person to person. The only thing that changes is the person himself. If there were no way of determining the moral value of a piece — if it were relative — you could get away with musical murder and no one could stop you! Who is to stay Piece A is bad? It doesn’t talk about anything bad. Well, that isn’t the only criteria for music, I dare say.

Something else that has colored this discussion is whether music can be inherently evil. Considering the above, it stands to reason that certain notes can inherently produce a certain reaction — perhaps even a reaction forbidden by God. That would make said arrangement of notes basically wrong for a Christian.

Sound, you see, carries meaning. Whether it is a tree falling down, someone screaming at you, or a door being slammed, sound conveys something to anyone who will listen such as information, a moral message, or a feeling. Music cannot be exempt from this principle.

Apart from the being inherently evil, it is even easier to prove a certain piece of music practically evil. If its use would cause other believers to stumble, then we are instructed to forgo that usage of our Christian liberty. (If the song is inherently bad, of course, then it would be practically evil as well.)


4) Should the whole be dispensed with if part is flawed?

Should an entire song be discarded if part is flawed? Should an entire genre be discarded if it is flawed?

Let’s examine this issue on the level of a single song:

Do the words and the music have a direct relationship? Are the two inseparable? Good words certainly do not make up for a bad tune, just as a good tune do not make up for bad words. The use of the good words or good tunes could easily be hampered, however, by their association with their immoral counterparts.

Can this principle be extended to an entire genre? I would say yes, it is possible, if not as likely or as clear-cut.


5) Rock music

a. Definition and origins of rock music

WordNet gives this definition of rock music:

rock music (a genre of popular music originating in the 1950s; a blend of black rhythm-and-blues with white country-and-western) "rock is a generic term for the range of styles that evolved out of rock'n'roll."

A gentleman who writes rock music puts it thus:

Rock and roll is sexual energy expressed in sound

What about the phrase “rock and roll?” According to AllWords.com,

As a noun:
1. The type of music
2. The dancing associated with the music
3. “An intangible feeling, philosophy, belief or allegiance relating to rock music (generally from the 1970s &1980s), and heavy metal bearing certain elements of this music, pertaining to unbridled enthusiasm, cynical regard for certain Christian and authoritarian bodies, and attitudes befitting some degree of youthful debauchery.”

As a verb:
1. “to start, commence, begin, get moving (Let’s rock and roll)”
2. “a euphemism for sexual intercourse.”

Wikipedia has something similar to say about the verb meaning of the phrase.

If this is not enough to condemn rock music, it certainly indicates that something is wrong. Very wrong.


b. Is rock music sensual? Permit my dictionary to define sensual:

sensual (adj.)
1. Of the body and the senses as distinguished from the intellect or spirit; bodily [sensual pleasures]
2. a) connected or preoccupied with bodily or sexual pleasures; voluptuous b) full of lust; licentious; lewd
3. resulting from, or showing preoccupation with, bodily or sexual pleasure [a sensual expression]

It should be noted that a distinction must be made between sensual and sensuous:

SYN. — sensuous suggests the strong appeal of that which is pleasing to the eye, ear, touch, etc. and, of a person, implies susceptibility to the pleasures of sensation [soft, sensuous music]; sensual refers to the gratification of the grosser bodily senses or appetite [sensual excesses]

(Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second College Edition)

The word sensual therefore has general the connotation of lust and the “grosser bodily senses.”

I believe that rock music is a generally sensual thing. Recall the fellow above who defined rock music as “sexual energy expressed in sound.” Even if that is only half-true, it could not be denied that rock appeals to generally sensual feelings and drives.

If this is the case, then why bother with rock music? Personally, I find no reason to bother with it, as I find it generally repulsive. But what about as a general principle?

c. Why listen to rock music at all? I can see a number of possible reasons:

i. You find it enjoyable
ii. You feel it can be used to effectively praise God
iii. Um, yeah.

One question I have: Should you find it enjoyable?

6) The Biblical answer (please list all the verses I've failed to remember)

As EK pointed out, we must ask the question is there a distinction between what music we listen to or perform for pleasure & recreation and what we use in a church setting?

It seems logical that music used to worship God must be held up to a higher standard than personal music. For example, humorous songs, while appropriate in many personal situations, are hardly apt for worship.

Does this mean that only serious music glorifies God? No, music can glorify God without being ideal for worship. There is a lot of amazing music that shows how great God is that is not constructed as sacred music. How could such wonderful sounds exist without Him? I have asked myself on more than one occasion when considering certain secular songs.

I quote for your consideration Colossians 3:16:

Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God. (NASB)

So, what about Christian liberty? Aren’t we just making sure the weaker brother doesn’t stumble when we choose are music? I would say it is not impossible, but that it is not necessarily the case.

While some acceptable music may be sullied through some personal attachment according to a particular believe, the moral nature of music assures that there is doubtless some music which all believers should avoid. The key is discerning what that music is...which is why we’re here.

Is there anything in Exodus 32:17 that should influence our discussion? When the people of Israel worshiped the golden calf, their fervor deceived Joshua into thinking it something else:

Now when Joshua heard the sound of the people as they shouted, he said to Moses, “There is a sound of war in the camp.”

I leave you with Psalm 150:

1 Praise the LORD!
Praise God in His sanctuary;
Praise Him in His mighty expanse.
2 Praise Him for His mighty deeds;
Praise Him according to His excellent greatness.
3 Praise Him with trumpet sound;
Praise Him with harp and lyre.
4 Praise Him with timbrel and dancing;
Praise Him with stringed instruments and pipe.
5 Praise Him with loud cymbals;
Praise Him with resounding cymbals.
6 Let everything that has breath praise the LORD.
Praise the LORD! (NASB)

Sovereign Show-Down

You know what really rumbles my thunder? People who challenge God's purpose in the universe. In no way am I referring to the innocent "why" questions of those who humbly seek for answers. I by all means refer to those who attempt to pridefully justify themselves... almost like an atheistic Job.

Everything that happens, happens because God is over all. Regardless of how you view God, He is sovereign. I can accept this. I am willing to accept this. I can't seem to comprehend how all things work together for the good of those who love Him, but I certainly would not want to take responsibility for such a task. I can hardly please several people at once! He is infinite, I am finite. He is sovereign, I am not; and I am okay with this.

Now, when people challenge God's purpose in certain events in humanity (i.e. 9/11, Haiti earthquakes, etc.) as well as in individual lives (i.e. personal troubles, health issues, etc.), a problem turns up. You see, the moment we object to God and His plan is the moment we try to out-holify God. The moment we object to God and His plan is the moment we hold up a standard to God. Where does this standard come from? How does it persist? If it exists, it must exist apart from God; but that is an absurdity, for there is no other standard that is independent of God. We basically assert ourselves as persons who know more, who know better than God.

The problem with that is that we attempt to assert our finite self over a sovereign, infinite Deity. Do you really think that's a good position to be in?

Draw!

Apologizing with Miracles

Lately I have been evaluating the debate between Evidentialism and Presuppositionalism. Evidentialism lays claim to God's miracles as in its arsenal of proofs to be used by the evidential apologist. It attacks Presuppositionalism for not using miracles as proofs in that particular apologetic system.

I would like to know what the other madmen/women around here think of this: I think Evidentialism is off base here because, in my mind, it shouldn't consider miracles as evidence. The creation is constantly before us and can be appealed to as a proof that the existence of a creator is necessary (much more could of course be discussed on this issue.) Miracles, however, cannot be duplicated and referred to as evidence. Moreover, and this is my thrust, miracles are a part of the testimony of Scripture and the appeal Scripture is that to which Presuppositionalism is based on in the first place. Presuppositionalism appeals to the testimony of Scripture out of a belief that only it can conquer the suppressed knowledge of God in the fallen man's mind - miracles fall in the category of the testimony of Scripture, not of empirical evidence.

Therefore, Evidentialism is wrong to even consider miracles as proofs in apologetics and certainly wrong for attacking Presuppositionalism for failing to use them.

What say you? Do miracles belong in the category of a) the testimony of Scripture, b) empirical evidence for today's use, or c) both?

Go Play Outside

It is expected of the younger generation of the masculine gender to play (at least on occasion) some form of electronic game. And why not? These games make supreme conversation starters, set an agenda for meetings with new friends, and are—after all—eminently diverting.

Whenever I consider this matter, I recall what I wrote in my journal on March 3, 2007. I was not wholly easy on the pastime:

The actual time playing blew by even faster than the day—how worthless video games are! The time was wonderful, yet horrible. I was sickened by […] the waste of time in which we were all engaged. And yet it was so terribly fun. They have all been poisoned by it, none less willing than the last. I am tainted, but not taken. These golden years will be spent, but not in that. I will die before I let something so trivial ruin my life. Every time I concede to the open arms of that unclean thing, I shall remember—“not in whole.” The game is Free? No! I have not the time. All who are taken in are fools—and yet I am the greatest fool of all, who knows the evil, yet still returns to the beautiful fiend all to often. Why must it all be so? He who has not tasted of it desires it all the more—to know, to see. He who has tasted is not satisfied. He hungers more, and just when he thinks he has mastered it—it returns. We are all fools! What can be done? I can pray, and He will answer. How, I cannot tell, but the Lord is Holy and Just: every minute wasted in this life shall be held to him [who wasted it]. None shall escape. Dear, that felt good.

Though I’ve never held fully to the sentiments in this tempestuous narrative, I must admit that I had a point.

How easy it is to find oneself among the strongest advocates for scheduling the next LAN Party — but those have one redeeming factor. That of course is the social aspect, without which they would be the pinnacle of imprudence. (Another benefit is being able to listen to opera, but I’m afraid I am among the few who fully take advantage of this.)

What can you show for a single hour spent before the computer playing [game title] with friends? How much less from playing alone! Certainly we have all realized this at one point — generally when some other obligation has conflicted with our gaming habits so that we are forced to make a decision between the two. We initially act upon our disapprobation thus:

Death to the invader!
Strike a deadly blow,
As an old Crusader
Struck his Paynim foe!

Let our martial thunder
Fill his soul with wonder,
Tear his ranks asunder,
Lay the tyrant low!

And often continue thus:

Thus our courage, all untarnish’d,
We’re instructed to display;
But to tell the truth unvarnish’d,
We are more inclined to say,
“Please you, do not hurt us.”

“Do not hurt us, if it please you!”
“Please you let us be.”
“Let us be, let us be!”

Sometimes, I get the sense that we almost fear what life would be without them—is our happiness contingent on them? Are there not thousands of things supremely better? Sitting on the couch thinking is a better occupation than sitting before a computer gaming.

Of course, you should talk, you say. I don’t pretend to be unaffected by this phenomenon. Once I figured out how to run in single player mode a particular game left over from a LAN party, I proceeded to waste more time than I care to recall on it. I finally took out a righteous rage on it and deleted it completely.

If other things seem less enjoyable, perhaps it is on account of the dulling of our senses rather than their realization of something better. Banging your head on a mattress won’t seem quite as painful once you bang your head on a door a few times, though perhaps baning your head on the mattress was far better. (Lame illustration, but that’s what came off the top of my head.)

But even if gaming doesn’t conflict with school, family, church, or anything else—if we have an hour of the day which need not be spent in any particular pursuit—even then, is it not a waste? Squandering precious hours on what is less than nothingness.

Waste:
to consume, spend, or employ uselessly or without adequate return; use to no avail or profit; squander: to waste money; to waste words.

Wuld my argumentes sond moore connyncynge in Middel Englyssh? Ywis, Ich finde the thoght yeveneth me gret plesire. Yf shreuehede ist too seveere, these games shoud lest-wis be consydered unadvisede.

Ich opene y-floore to expoundynge!

Naturalism vs. Values

You know what really crumbles my cookie? Naturalists who hold to any value – whatsoever. Values are completely antithetical to pure Naturalism. (I just may break some sort of record for question marks in this post.)

We have all considered the ultimate problem for the naturalist: the origin of morals. What is right and what is wrong? Some hold that the society or community is the authority on what is right and wrong. The problem is then, how does the community decide what is right and what is wrong? Some hold that right behaviors are those which aid in the continuation of the propagation of the human species. Okay. We have arrived at another problem the naturalist cannot sufficiently answer.

Why is the propagation of the human species a good thing?

For a naturalist to say that the human species should even continue is odd. It is odd because they are ascribing value to a merely physical process. They are saying that the physical process of a human being begetting another human being is a good thing. If the universe is merely physical, if everything is just chemical, then who cares if a human organism lives or dies? Who cares if the all the planets in the universe contain life or not? I would challenge a pure Naturalist to give a reason why anyone should live or die.

People generally love their children. Why? Is emotion merely a chemical reaction? Do I love my daughter because she shares a certain chemical I do and those similar chemicals are attracted to each other and the chemicals in our bodies express themselves as what we interpret as love? Why do I love my wife? Do we have similar chemicals? We are not blood-relatives, after all. Would the Naturalist say that since we share a common ancestor way back, that is why we may share a similar chemical? Why then would I hate one member of the human species and love another? Why do some people hate their children or their parents? What about preference? Why does someone like the color red and another like the color blue?

A true naturalist says that everything in the universe is merely physical. Should I care if a rock is moved from place to another? Should I care if water evaporates? I may care about that because I enjoy moisture returning to the sky so it can rain again, water some crops, and ultimately allow food to be put on my table. But why should I care if I eat? What does it truly matter if a person lives or dies, if everything is merely natural? I cannot for a second care whatsoever that Jupiter is constantly blasted by violent storms; it doesn’t affect me. If something affects a human toward a positive benefit, then the human must be valuable. How can anything be valuable in pure Naturalism?

To avoid the argument, a naturalist may quickly say, “It doesn’t really matter.” But deep down, they don’t really believe this. They don’t really believe a random person should be murdered and they wouldn’t be bereft of grief if their mother died. Naturalists are incredibly contradictory to their worldview and they don’t even know it; this is my lament.

Just like the creationist’s argument that there has to be an unmoved mover somewhere upstream, there has to be an author of morality somewhere upstream. We cannot create our own values if Naturalism is correct. In fact, the mere concept of values should be considered ridiculous. Just as spontaneous generation of organic life is impossible, so is spontaneous generation of morality. There really are very few pure Naturalists because those who consider themselves as Naturalists do not understand what that worldview necessitates – a complete lack of values of any kind.

So to reword my assertion – values cannot exist in pure Naturalism. In fact, the existence of values held by humanity is a proof against Naturalism.

Excursus

Keep in mind that most evolutionists seem to assume they are Naturalists.

A member of PETA might go so far as saying that humans should just up and die so the animals can have reign of the earth. But if it would be good for humanity to die, it would also be good for the animal kingdom to die. After all, animals kill far more animals than humans do. I know they would say we are less worthy of life because we are the only species who kills for sport. But this does not get around the problem of pure Naturalism because killing for sport would not be bad at all if everything is merely physical. This same member of PETA would be distraught if a human loved-one of theirs dies. This would be inconsistent with a Naturalist worldview.

A staunch environmentalist might say that the human race should be severely decreased so the earth can be saved from “global warming.” But yet again, what does it matter which climate the earth is saddled with if everything is merely physical?

I ask so many questions in this post because I challenge the pure Naturalist to answer them without being contrary to their own worldview.

Housekeeping

To all authors: please capitalize the first letter of all post labels. Thanks!