The God Delusion

This book by Richard Dawkins is intended to present the essential case against religion, however I think it falls short of the mark.

The best portions of the book are the ones that deal with elaborating on the various arguments for religion and why they are erroneous; faced with someone else's argument Dawkins has no problem bringing his ideas to bear. I actually found the chapter fairly informative, because I had not previously encountered some of the arguments and I could see why they might be difficult to counter on the fly.

The most bizarre factor I found in this section that Dawkins falls back on a "probability" analysis for many of the arguments . . . an analysis that is logically flawed. It amounts to relying on Occam's razor, which is not, in fact, a logical truism. You cannot discuss the "likelyhood" or "probability" of something that bears no relation to any known facts. Not to mention the fact that there must be a definable and identifiable alternative in order to discuss probability. I can discuss how probable it is that a woman will have a boy or a girl: there are two known alternatives and the result must be one of them. You can't discuss the likelyhood that God or Vishnu or Ashura-Mazda created the universe because you don't know all the alternatives or even that the answer must necessarily be one of these alternatives.

Dawkins just declares that we'll assign some random "likelyhood" factor to each alternative, but what does this amount to? Let me pull some stuff out my rear end. This is not the way to argue logic or use reason.

Dawkins also has a substantial problem presenting the case for atheism, however. Part of this may be the fact that it's difficult to be for a position that is essentially a negation (atheism is non-religion, it's not pro-anything). The other part seems to be that Dawkins has only vague ideas of what anyone should be for. In complaining about the morality evidenced in the Bible (particularly in the Old Testament), the best rationale he can come up with for why it is vile and destructive is that it is not compatable with the "changing moral zeitgeist". What, exactly, comprises that zeitgeist and why is that a better morality than the one of the Old Testament?

No answer is forthcoming. So, really, the book is kind of pointless unless you're already an atheist and can fill in Dawkins' holes for yourself, or you don't really care much for clarity of thought and communication and you base your ideas on whatever you've read the most recently.

Oh well. If you're looking for a real comprehensive case against religion and for an alternative, I suggest you look into Objectivism and the writings of Ayn Rand.

Rating: 2.0

Seven Possibly Interesting Things

I saw this meme on Gus Van Horn and I thought I'd give it a try since I'm too tired to come up with anything really original today. However, I'm having a hard time with it since I'm also apparently too tired to come up with anything that's possibly interesting about me, too. I'm probably one of the most boring people on the face of the earth.

Hmm. Does that maybe count as #1? Nah, I have to be able to come up with something better than that. Okay, let's try this:

1. I'm the only person in my family that cannot play a musical instrument. I can't sing, either.
2. I still haven't seen The Shawshank Redemption. I'm not sure why.
3. I'm an Objectivist. I love fantasy novels. I can't stand Terry Goodkind.
4. Red is my least-favorite color. Every car I've ever owned has been red.
5. I will hold long, drawn-out, loud conversations with myself when I think no one is listening. Frequently, I am mistaken. Maybe I can get a second job as a street mutterer or something.
6. I have never fired a gun.
7. I think glasses are sexy.

Whew. That was way more work than it was probably worth.

Arrived

Well, here I am in New York with not much to do except work and no one to do it with. It always takes me a long time to get settled into a new place because I'm not very social under the best of circumstances and after a long day full of people I don't know very well I must fight a fierce desire to hide under the furniture.

Let this not be taken to indicate that I'm not enjoying myself: I am. Work is going good and I'm learning a lot of new things about a business that doesn't appear complicated on first brush but actually requires quite a bit of savvy and lots of organization. I'm finding my way around and I've located the absolute earthly necessities: Wal-Mart and Borders. I also found a movie theater and I went to see Spiderman 3 over the weekend.

Given ,I seem to have become a mass of physical ailments, too: after being absolutely fine for several years my allergies have come back with a vengeance and I spent several days stuffed-up and sneezing. Then, just as I was getting better I spontaneously fell over in the parking lot (wow, graceful) and tore all the skin off my knee. It's healing and it ITCHES. Then this morning I was ill, however I seem to have gotten over that much at least.

I have a lot of projects I'd like to work on, such as converting KloOge (more on this later perhaps) so I can run a 3.5 ed D&D psionics game online with all the bells and whistles. I've got novels to work on and I should start looking around to meet some new people. So, I thought, hey, I should blog. Blogging is a good way for me to get in the mood to start on projects and it gives me an incentive to look around for something to write about.

Movin' On Up Redux

For those of you that don't know and may be interested, I'm going to be moving to New York very soon; in fact, Friday is my last day at work. Since I've kind of gotten tired of answering the same questions over and over and over and over I thought I'd include this handy Moving FAQ:

Q: You're moving to New York?
A: Yes.

Q: Why?
A: I found a nice new job there and I'm sick of Dayton.

Q: Where in New York? In New York City?
A: No. Monsey.

Q: Where?
A: *tired sigh* It's just north of New Jersey.

Q: *blank look* Oh. So are you going to live in New York City?
A: No. I'll actually be living in Middletown.

Q: Where?
A: *dirty look*

Q: Oh, um, okay then, have you got a place to live?
A: No, I was just going to sleep in a cardboard box. Of course I do.

Q: Are you excited?
A: Yes.

Q: So what are you going to be doing?
A: I'll be the Production Manager at a medical transcription firm.

Q: I didn't know you did medical transcription.
A: I don't. Note the Manager part of that job description.

Q: Oh, so you'll be like, managing people?
A: Something very like that, yes. Practically identical.

Q: So how'd you find this job?
A: I know people that know people.

Q: Do you think you'll miss Dayton?
A: Is this a trick question?

Q: So, um, are you excited?
A: Well I was.

If you can think of any other inane questions I haven't answered, feel free to send me a message.

300

I have to blog about this movie while it is still fresh in my mind; a true description of any work of art must encompass the whole and not dwell on trifling details that are of small significance to the overall work.

The whole of 300 was: it's very good. The symbolism was profound, the pagentry overwhelming in its grandeur and shocking in its grotesqueries. There was only one flaw that prevented it from ascending to the realms of great art.

I think I should point out this flaw, because it is not so much an error on the part of the director or scripwriter; it is a symptom of a philosophical flaw endemic to this culture. I speak of the chronic inability to recognize, define, or demonstrate what is the good.

The general story of 300 you may already know: it is a retelling of the battle of Thermopylae, where King Leonidas held off the Persians. The movie (based on a graphic novel with the same title), is highly fictionalized. I don't say this as criticism; the purpose of art is not to teach us history. It would be dull art indeed if it did. The more fiction the better, I say.

In the movie's presentation, on the one side we have the Spartans: highly trained and disciplined warriors raised on deprivation and struggle until they are the finest fighting force in the world. Their small numbers mean nothing. On the other side we have the Persians, slaves to their god-king Xerxes, bound to his will, their numbers almost beyond counting.

The director did an excellent job of displaying the corruption of Xerxes and his slave forces, not to mention the nature of those who would choose to bow before the god-king of the East, taking his wealth in exchange for their freedom. What he did not do was demonstrate the value of freedom in any meaningful way. Without definition or demonstration, a battle cry becomes an empty platitude, righteousness becomes the mindless rage of an animal. You may fight to preserve Sparta, Leonidas, but what in Sparta is worth preserving?

Or, to look at it another way, what in America is worth preserving? What in life is worth preserving?

We are left with no answer. In all the works of this country, there is no answer. Almost everyone retains enough rationality to point out the myriad contradictions, hypocricies and evils that confront us every day. All this requires is the ability to say: here is one fact and this contradicts it. It is very difficult to say about anything: this is truth, this is right, this is good. You require a full ethical and philosophical foundation to be able to declare that with confidence about anything.

This is also what is most significantly lacking in this culture. Even if someone grasps some good in a semi-coherent fashion, they may not think it worth putting into their art for fear of the "contraversies" . . . in this culture there is no shortage of vultures ready and willing to knock down any attempt to define the good. It is quite possibly the most significant cause of the depravity, despair, and desolation that lie in the hearts of the people of this country.

If you want to create great art, you must stand up to battle these vultures. I salute the efforts of the creators of 300, salute them and say, you must still do better.

The Prestige

I just watched The Prestige for the first time on DVD, and I enjoyed it a great deal; it certainly brought a number of ideas to mind.

Isn't it interesting that movies of the same general type tend to all come out at roughly the same time? Here we have The Illusionist and The Prestige together, two tales of battling magicians. Is there some kind of Hollywood espionage going on? My theory is that there's one guy in Hollywood that comes up with all the movie plots. He's some sort of raving genius and the big studios like to hold parties where they get him drunk and let him expound on his newest idea. Then whoever is at the party turns his idea into a movie. Okay, okay, it's not a very elegant theory, but still.

The Prestige properly belongs to the "mind bender" movie genre, so named by my housemate, and there is the half-expected moment of epiphany near the end of the movie where you figure out what is going on. I think that's what really makes the entire genre enjoyable . . . the fleeting sensation that all the pieces have slotted into place and you can see the workings of the machine. It's really great. Unfortunately, in this movie it doesn't sync up quite perfectly. I suspect there are two causes for this. Firstly, that the movie exposition is extremely scattered, rushing from one time and place to another without giving you time to grasp the relation of the events. Secondly, there are some extraneous elements that don't wrap up into the story very well and explanatory elements are introduced too late in the movie to develop properly. It very much left me with a sense that a few pieces of the machine had gone *ping* into the corners somewhere.

It was fun, though, and not the least because it has Hugh Jackman in it. He's such a great actor. I thought Christian Bale was only so-so . . . he was better in Batman Begins. David Bowie as Nikola Tesla was just wicked. I mean, come on, Bowie? Tesla? That's just surreal, and the more so because he did a great job in the role.

Lucky # Slevin

Although this movie contains Morgan Freeman, Ben Kingsley (Sir Ben Kingsley? What's up with that?), Lucy Liu, and Bruce Willis, it's no better than fair and possibly even worse.

Slevin is a young man caught accidentally in a conflict between two gang lords due to a bizarre case of mistaken identity. It's supposedly an attempt at a twist-ending crime film (vaguely along the lines of Ocean's Eleven), but the pacing is too drawn-out to be fun or leave you guessing.

At the end, it's pretty much what you'd expect to see on television on a dull Sunday afternoon.

Galileo Blogs

I wandered over to Galileo Blogs' site from Oo.net and I have to say it's pretty impressive, so I'm adding him onto my blogroll. I should probably do some more work to flesh it out, but it seems like a lot of the sites I add to my 'roll wind up getting deleted some time later when I become disenchanted with them. Oh, well, such is the price of progress.

Rousseau and the Real Culture War

David Heleniak has done me the favor of letting me read his forthcoming book, Rousseau and the Real Culture War so that I could review it, and I have to say that I found it quite interesting. Heleniak's point, that the Left and Right are basically identical, is a pretty common observation, but I have never encountered his particular discussion for the reasons why this came about anywhere.

I'm not especially familiar with Rousseau or 18th century French philosophy, and it was startling to see how and why Heleniak considers that his ideas have given rise to the modern Left.

The book does have some flaws, mostly because the organization and presentation of the argument are a bit scattered and it requires some concentration to follow, but the material is sound. Heleniak does a good job of keeping it concise, so it's easy to sit down and read it all the way through. I'm sure we'll be hearing more from Mr. Heleniak in the future. At the moment I'd say he's still an amateur, but a very promising one. There's nothing wrong with being an amateur: I'm one and probably will be for quite some time.

Mr. Heleniak indicated that he plans to have Rousseau and the Real Culture War available at lulu.com sometime next month, and perhaps also available at Amazon or other sites later. I'll post an update when I have firmer information than this.

Rating: 2.5

Crank

Have you ever seen a movie and then kind of wonder why you bothered? Well, that's the way I feel about Crank. In fact, I pretty much felt that way before I saw the movie, I just let my housemate talk me into renting and later watching it because he wanted to see it. He's a guy, I suppose he can be forgiven for having occasional low tastes.

The "story", to the extent that there actually is one, is pretty basic: the main character, a professional gang killer-for-hire, has been poisoned as an act of revenge by (surprise) another gang killer-for-hire. The "twist", to the extent that there actually is one, is that adrenilin slows the effects of the poison. So, numerous ridiculous stunts, chase scenes, etc. ensue.

I'm pretty sure that Crank doesn't come even close to qualifying as art. There's not really even a plot. However, it is proof positive that in order to produce a successful action movie, you don't need a reason, just an excuse.

The Illusionist

There's really not that much to say about this movie other than the fact that it was well done; it is almost a study in understatement, driven by the character of Eisenheim, the Illusionist. There's not a great deal of excitement or suspense. Events unfold quietly, at a measured pace.

Eisenheim is in love with Sophie, the Duchess, however since he's the son of a cabinetmaker their romance is essentially impossible . . . at least on the surface. She is taken away from him and he travels the world for many years. During that time, they lose touch and it is arranged for Sophie to marry Crown Prince Leopold, largely in support for the Prince's schemes to gain support from Hungary and become Emperor. Leopold cares little for Sophie other than for political gain. Leopold becomes interested in Eisenheim's fantastic illusions, sparking a reunion between the two childhood friends and a rivalry between the Crown Prince and the Illusionist. Then Sophie is murdered.

The film doesn't deal with any particularly grand abstractions, even seeks to avoid them, but the interactions between the various characters are fascinating and the acting is superb, even if the conclusion is somewhat predictable. The illusions are also neat to watch, so I thoroughly recommend the film.

Jack Bauer Gives Us the Lowdown

I spotted the above brief humorous article while I was browsing around and I had to chuckle, even though I don't watch 24.

Eragon

The way of a director that would turn a popular fantasy novel into a movie is as a darkened kitchen containing an open diswasher.

I hadn't heard anything particularly good about this movie, but I decided to go see it anyway because I enjoyed the book a great deal. Sadly, it wasn't really worth the effort. The movie is incredibly mediocre.

The major problem that I could detect was that the events and the characters' motivations did not link up very well. Events proceeded one after another but there was never a sense of a plot moving forward: nothing seemed connected to anything else. The characters had no personality, the soundtrack was heavy-handed . . . all in all a bad job of telling a good story.

NutriSystem Update #1

Well, I'm on the fifth day of my new NutriSystem diet and thus far things are going pretty well. Some slight ups and downs have occured as I acclimate to the new food intake schedule, but that's only to be expected.

# of Days on diet: 5
# of Pounds lost: 9

Quick Thought

I heard on the radio this morning that Nancy Pelosi wants new legislation put into place that will require the government to negotiate better drug prices for Medicare recipients. Pardon me a second, but it isn't a negotiation if the government demands lower prices! It's equivalent, literally and morally, to a thug holding you up for your wallet. If he only takes SOME of the money instead of ALL of the money and lets you keep your drivers' license and credit cards, that doesn't make it any more right.

Sheesh.

The Pursuit of Happyness

I hadn't been to see a really good movie for far too long. A coworker recommended The Pursuit of Happyness to me and it seemed intruiging, not at all like the usual tired romantic comedies and action movies that parade endlessly across the silver screen.

The premise is simple: Will Smith plays a hardworking father that wants to provide a better life for himself and his family. Trapped in a dead-end independent sales position, he discovers the potential of a career as a stock broker, and it seems like a dream come true. But it is a faint and distant dream, seemingly not for the likes of him. His bitter struggle to grasp hold of his dream before it escapes is both horrifying and inspirational.

The perpetually-goofy Will Smith is not someone you'd expect to see in a movie like this, but he carries the weight of the entire movie much like Tom Hanks carried Cast Away, and he does it so well that you have to wonder whether he's acting at all. The direction is great: elements are introduced, played upon, and then reveal their importance in a grand dance of interconnected pieces. One small thing that struck me is that even though Will Smith is black and most of the people at the brokerage are white, race is not made much of as an issue. It's not even mentioned at all, which makes Mr. Smith into an almost-unseen type of character: the heroic man with whom everyone can identify.

New Year's Resolutions?

I'm a little ambivalent about doing any New Year's resolutions this year, largely because I find it difficult to predict my progress towards concrete goals. This may, in fact, be my problem: my goals are too abstract for me to make reasonable progress towards accomplishing them.

Let's take an example of one of my goals: find a better job. The difficulty comes in defining what, precisely, constitutes a "better" job. One that's in a better location? One that pays more? One that offers better opportunities for advancement? Ideally, I'd like to get all of those things, but often it's necessary to settle for just one of those qualities . . . it may even be necessary to take a cut in one of the other areas.

So, it's often difficult for me to decide what opportunities to pursue, and even then, they tend not to pan out. I didn't do such a good job of accomplishing my resolutions for last year, largely because Something Came Up. I think this possibly qualifies as the Lamest Excuse Ever.

So, this year, I've decided to take a slightly different approach. My overall goals are the same (I'm in pretty much the same position I was last year), but I'm going to try altering my approach to them. So, for instance, instead of resolving to lose a specific amount of weight, I'm going to try NutriSystem for a month and monitor my weight. If I lose weight, I'm going to focus on keeping at it for another month, and so on.

Likewise with finding a better job: I'm going to look at the want ads and apply for anything that looks good this week. Then, next week, I'll do it again. Sooner or later I'm bound to find something.

Happy Holidays etc.

It seems kind of silly to make a big deal about coming back and then not blog for two weeks, but I've been kind of distracted.

The first thing that happened was the Saga of Car Repair, which is kind of a funny story in and of itself. Events ran as follows:

1. Dad calls me asking what he and Mom can get me for Christmas. After positing several suggestions, he mentions helping me out with getting some regular maintenance for my car, which is in dire need of same. This sounds like a fantabulous idea to yours truly, so we conclude the discussion with the decision that we will look around for a good place to get said repairs.

2. The VERY NEXT DAY my car develops an ominously flat tire while I am at work. So, I wind up sitting around for two hours while I wait for Sandy's Towing (good service, btw . . . the wait was NOT their fault) to come get me. In theory, this could have been resolved more easily by me a.) having a spare and b.) changing it myself, however I'm not especially mechanically inclined and trying to change a tire in the freezing cold parking lot when I have only the most rudimentary idea what I am doing and I have forgotten to bring a coat is not my idea of a brilliant . . . idea. I'd rather pay the hundred bucks to have a professional move my car than worry about frostbite and/or potential serious injury. This is the same reason why I don't offer to jump start other people's cars.

3. I tell Firestone (my car repair persons of choice) that I need new tires (second flat in three months and they are bald) and while they're doing that I could use an oil change, inspection, etc. etc. etc. just open the thing up and see what needs to be replaced.

4. Firestone calls me back the next morning (elapsed time car in their posession: 14 hrs) and informs me that, well, basically the entire car needs to be replaced. Okay, it wasn't quite that bad, but it was still pretty bad. The catalytic converter was in two pieces (so THAT'S what was causing all the noise), the rest of the exhaust system needed replacement, I needed new brake shoes on the front wheels and two new brake CYLINDERS on the back wheels (they were busted and leaking), and, oh, by the by, the sway pins (I think that's what they said) are also broken so the car could just spontaneously roll over at some point.

5. I hang up on them and whine and complain (internally) about how fiendishly expensive transportation is for a while. Then I start trying to figure out where I can scare up some money to pay for all of this. After ritually cleaning out my pants pockets and seat cushions, I email my parents to let them know the damage and encourage them to contribute whatever amount seems best to them.

6. Mom calls me back and explains that they'll just pick up the tab.

7. Brief hiatus while I figure out how I wound up on the floor with the phone on my face.

8. Car is re-obtained from Firestone in actual working condition (total elapsed time car in their possession: 25 hours). There is much rejoicing.

So, that is my Holiday Story for the year. Hope everyone has a great New Year!

Neverwinter Nights 2

One of the two games that I've been waiting, literally, all year to buy, NwN2 has really turned out to be a worthwhile experience for me. The funny part is that most of the value actually comes from some of the philsophical (specifically, ethical) issues that arise within the official campaign.

For those of you unfamiliar with NwN, the general idea is to bring the 3rd edition Dungeons and Dragons rules to computer gaming in a form that enables individuals to write and publish their own stories. While both games and their various expansions contain their own "Official" campaign that you can easily play as a stand-alone game (and they are reasonably fun just to play), by far the heftiest part of the package is the DM Toolset. This is an extremely nice feature, because once you've finished the Official campaign, you can still download new playing material, usually for free or very cheap. (Or write your own, of course.)

Anyway, on with the review. The graphics are, as one might expect, much improved in this newer game, although this does mean that they require correspondingly better computer hardware to run. They've lost most of the cartoony aspects from the previous game, that's for sure. It runs reasonably well on my low-end machine, or at least it does now that I've turned down all the graphic options.

The thing that tickles me, though, is that a lot of the conflict in the game plot can basically be described as a result of bad philosophical principles. As an Objectivist, this made it fun for me to play because as the plot thickened I was sitting back thinking: "I could have predicted that," or "I knew something like that would happen." The ethical positions in the game are portrayed very consistently and quite well.

UNfortunately, there's basically no Objectivist "side" at all if you want to be consistent, so if you have limited patience you may experience a desire to smack some of the characters before you've finished. If you like CRPG's and D&D in particular, I say this game is well worth the money.

However, DO NOT BUY THE OFFICIAL STRATEGY GUIDE. This is a friendly warning, free of charge: it is totally worthless. It doesn't tell you anything you can't figure out for yourself by playing the game, and much of the information is actually incorrect since there have already been multiple 50+ meg updates that changed large portions of the game in significant ways. If you are planning on writing your own mods, it might be worth it to buy the World-Builder's Guide, but other than that don't touch it.

The Return of the Jenni

I've actually been feeling somewhat my old self (and, yes, I realize that term may be subject to debate!) again lately, perhaps because I finally gave up and spent several days sleeping or perhaps because I've returned from Computer Game Purgatory and actually started paying attention to real life again. Either way, I figured that this was a good time to start back on blogging. Plus some of my friends like Toiler and Myrhaf have been posting occasionally.

So, with their good example before me, I present a return to our Regularly Scheduled Programming.