Good Reason

It's okay to be wrong. It's not okay to stay wrong.

Category: post (page 90 of 125)

Faure Requiem

Last Sunday’s performance of the Fauré Requiem was glorious. I felt emotionally wrung-out afterward. I’d always been partial to the Duruflé Requiem for listenability — I always found the Fauré a bit flat and featureless. But whenever I perform a piece, I always magically like it more. (Do people ever really enjoy a piece of music without performing it?) So now I see the Fauré differently. I think Fauré was trying to do more with less: a limited orchestra (with only one violin), a stripped-down text, and only two soloists. It’s not a difficult sing. But such emotion he gets out of the simple tunes.

While singing the Requiem, I had the same feeling I got doing Carmina Burana: the feeling of mortality. One theme for Carmina is the Wheel of Fortune (and it even appears on the cover of the sheet music). Sometimes you’re up and sometimes you’re down. But during the performance of the famous ‘O Fortuna’, I imagined the image of the Wheel as a torture rack. An infant is born, pitched helplessly into a world of noise and pain and fear and glorious sensation. You can’t stop it. You’re carried along, and sometimes riding the Wheel is horrifying and confusing, and being alive always leads to death.

That feeling came to me during the Fauré ‘Agnus Dei’. It’s about two minutes in. The choir sings ‘lux aeterna’ in fervent and melancholy descending chords. Now we’re at the end of our ride on the Wheel, and the music mirrors our descent to bed and to the grave. To extinguishment. It’s fearful and helpless. The organ and orchestra convey the plangent, almost overbearing sensation of standing at the end of life. Who will save us?

But Fauré ends with the ‘In Paradisum’, with its sumptuous vision of the rest and peace of an afterlife. There’s one part that I always listen for — it’s where the men join the sopranos on the word ‘Jerusalem’. Simple chords, but so lovely. There I was, between two first tenors, and me a second, and the sound was just right. It became difficult to sing because I was getting verklempt.

So — a good show. I’m glad I sing. It keeps me in touch with my life and my humanity.

Fallacy of the Day

The Fallacy of the Day comes from Sam Brownback. You may remember him — in a recent debate, he was one of three Republicans who didn’t ‘believe in evolution’. This means he’s too stupid to run for president of the USA, and America being what it is, that’s exactly what he wants to do.

Now he’s written this piece: What I Think About Evolution.

Just a note here: It matters not a jot what Mr Brownback or I or anyone else ‘thinks’ or ‘believes’ about evolution. Evolution is happening all the same, though we may need to update the theory from time to time as evidence warrants. Actually, I don’t believe in evolution either; I accept it as a more or less correct theory. But let’s put semantics and pedantics aside.

Here’s the heart of his argument:

The question of evolution goes to the heart of this issue. If belief in evolution means simply assenting to microevolution, small changes over time within a species, I am happy to say, as I have in the past, that I believe it to be true. If, on the other hand, it means assenting to an exclusively materialistic, deterministic vision of the world that holds no place for a guiding intelligence, then I reject it.

The most passionate advocates of evolutionary theory offer a vision of man as a kind of historical accident. That being the case, many believers — myself included — reject arguments for evolution that dismiss the possibility of divine causality.

The fallacy committed here is that of wishful thinking. Mr Brownback doesn’t like the idea that humans might have arisen through random, unguided chance, so he’s agin’ it.

Let’s inform the scientists. Everyone: the Republican from Kansas doesn’t like it. It must not be true.

Why are we good?

Some evidence that morality comes, not from religious training, but from our evolutionary wiring:

The results were showing that when the volunteers placed the interests of others before their own, the generosity activated a primitive part of the brain that usually lights up in response to food or sex. Altruism, the experiment suggested, was not a superior moral faculty that suppresses basic selfish urges but rather was basic to the brain, hard-wired and pleasurable.

Joshua D. Greene, a Harvard neuroscientist and philosopher, said multiple experiments suggest that morality arises from basic brain activities. Morality, he said, is not a brain function elevated above our baser impulses. Greene said it is not “handed down” by philosophers and clergy, but “handed up,” an outgrowth of the brain’s basic propensities.

It shouldn’t be surprising to find an evolutionary basis for altruism; critters that can work together will naturally have some advantage over those that have to plug along by themselves.

I’ve blogged before about the connection between mirror neurons, language, and morality, but it seems that this evolutionary wiring must go back farther than that.

No one can say whether giraffes and lions experience moral qualms in the same way people do because no one has been inside a giraffe’s head, but it is known that animals can sacrifice their own interests: One experiment found that if each time a rat is given food, its neighbor receives an electric shock, the first rat will eventually forgo eating.

A good article, but why did they have to include this?

Their 2006 finding that unselfishness can feel good lends scientific support to the admonitions of spiritual leaders such as Saint Francis of Assisi, who said, “For it is in giving that we receive.” But it is also a dramatic example of the way neuroscience has begun to elbow its way into discussions about morality and has opened up a new window on what it means to be good.

Assisi, schmassisi. I can hear the blather already: ‘Science is only now just beginning to recognise what spiritual leaders have been teaching for centuries.’ When in fact the discovery is one more sign of religion’s irrelevance.

Interesting facts about the Friday Random Five

This week’s FR5 presents songs and trivia, all from my own encyclopedic memory.

But first, let’s just gaze for a moment at the cover of the new Björk album, Volta.

Well, that’s a relief. For a little while there, I thought it was going to be something weird.

I’m gearing up for a performance of Fauré’s Requiem I’m doing on Sunday, so I’m not listening to any popular music this week. Well, maybe Cibo Matto. And the following Random Five.

I’d Like to Walk Around in Your Mind by Lush
Album: Topolino

  • This is a sweet little guitar song that conceals a bitter little core, which means that it’s a perfect Lush song.
  • The song is credited to ‘unknown’, but it would appear to have been an early Vashti Bunyan song.
  • She describes how she’d like to get inside the head of someone who hasn’t been particularly kind to her. Most unsettling lyric: But most of all I’d like you to be unaware / And then just wander away, dragging palm leaves behind me, so you don’t even know that I’ve been there.

12 Hours by The Whitlams
Album: Little Cloud

  • This album was produced by J. Walker of Machine Translations, and as a result, the album is about nine times more interesting than a typical Whitlams album.
  • It’s a spare piano song about post-seduction regret.
  • The Whitlams were named after an Australian Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam. He was famously dismissed by the Governor General, which is sort of like being fired by the Queen. Since then, Prime Ministers have selected GG’s for their timidity.
  • Best lyric: ‘Some may drown their sorrows; mine, they like to swim.’ Too bad it’s a U2 lyric.

Get Off the Stage by Morrissey
Album: Piccadilly Palare (Single)

  • This song was written and played on by Andy Rourke, Morrissey’s former Smiths bandmate.
  • This song is a relentless self-parody. He taunts himself as an aging pop star and mocks his misguided trousers, his… mascara? Fender guitar?
  • Silly me. It’s a dig at Mick Jagger.

Special by Garbage
Album: Version 2.0

  • Three of the members of Garbage are producers, including Butch Vig of Nirvana fame.
  • Garbage is the worst name for a band. You have to be a really good band to have a name like Garbage.
  • They got that name because one of their friends heard an early demo, and said, “This shit sounds like garbage!”
  • This song appeared in a hallway shot in an episode of Dawson’s Creek. Remember Dawson’s Creek?
  • The theme of the song is a fairly involved three-part harmony. Fortunately, they drop the instrumentation around it for a while so it can be heard properly.

Lithium (live) by Nirvana
Album: Nirvana Live Vol. 1

  • This is a really crappy bootleg.
  • The songs appear on the disc as one long track. I had to cut the songs into tracks myself. How crap is that?
  • Pretty crap.
  • I remember that the video for this song had the Nirvana guys apearing in Beatle outfits, interspersed with them in dresses. There were two endings, one for each outfit. MTV tended to play the non-dress-ending one more.
  • I never got to see Nirvana live. The SLC show in 1994 sold out too quickly.
  • That sucks.

And the increasingly likely Bonus Sixth:
Video Killed the Radio Star by Buggles
Album: The Age of Plastic

  • The Buggles featured brilliant Art of Noise producer Trevor Horn.
  • This song was the very first song ever played on MTV.
  • The Presidents of the USA covered it once.
  • I still think it’s a good song.
  • Trevor Horn compiled the soundtrack to the movie Coyote Ugly. He used music from the early nineties, which made me think that his musical knowledge stopped there.
  • But then he did produce The Life Pursuit by Belle and Sebastian, which means he’s still relevant, and we owe him something after all.

Australian language policy at work

Because Australian languages aren’t disappearing quickly enough.

Indigenous Affairs Minister Mal Brough says it should be compulsory for Aboriginal children to learn English.

Mr Brough says children will not be able to get jobs if they cannot speak English and do not have a basic education, and he is considering a plan to quarantine welfare payments to ensure parents send their children to school.

Have you ever wondered why English proponents even exist, seeing as English is already pretty popular around here? So have I. Maybe it’s one of these things where you train a dog by telling it to do stuff that it’s already doing. At last, a language policy that could actually achieve its stated goals.

And it’s nice that they’re concerned about indigenous kids getting jobs. I wonder if there’s any other legislation being considered that would help them get jobs. Some kind of Affirmative Action thing. Nope, teaching them English should be enough. Problem solved.

Here’s someone who understands the problem.

New South Wales’ first Indigenous MP, Linda Burney, says Mr Brough seems to lack a fundamental understanding of Aboriginality.

“I think that he needs to understand that culture and country is incredibly important to Aboriginal people and they will be protected at all costs,” he said.

“Aboriginal kids do need to be bilingual but it’s a bit rich coming from a person who actually is part of a Government that took away funding for bilingual programs in the Northern Territory.”

Ms Burney says one of the biggest tragedies is losing traditional Aboriginal languages, a problem that is not being addressed.

She says Mr Brough’s proposal could lead to “cultural death”.

“Now, it is important to be bilingual – there’s no two ways about it – but it can’t be at the expense of your mother tongue.”

This is exactly right. Support English lessons for anyone who wants them. But don’t hasten language death by tying welfare payments to forced English lessons.

Hitchens on Falwell

Falwell’s death has made the world a better place, and in this clip Hitch gives an anti-eulogy.

Lots of intriguing thoughts here:

  • Do religious conmen really believe their schtick?
  • If you think religion is false but ‘teaches good moral values’ (as I have been guilty of thinking from time to time), then how moral is it to teach lies to children?
  • Why do religious beliefs so often get a pass when it comes to critical evaluation?

But the interesting thing for me: Did anyone notice Anderson Cooper’s use of ‘yeah, no’ at 3:33? This is typically regarded as Australian, but it could be spreading.

Why do people say ‘yeah, no’? Is the ‘yeah’ an agreement, and the ‘no’ a discourse particle? If so, what’s the ‘no’ doing? Is it to backtrack to an earlier part of the discourse? Does it start a new branch off the dialogue? At this point, I tend to think it’s there to anticipate disagreement, or to set up an imaginary opponent, and disagree with them to show that you’re following your listener.

More research needs to be done et cetera.

Romney v Satan: How do they stack up?

Did you know that a vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for Satan? So says prominent Christian pastor Bill Keller.

“If you vote for Mitt Romney, you are voting for Satan!” he writes in his daily devotional to be sent out to 2.4 million e-mail subscribers tomorrow.
….
“This message today is not about Mitt Romney,” he writes. “Romney is an unashamed and proud member of the Mormon cult founded by a murdering polygamist pedophile named Joseph Smith nearly 200 years ago. The teachings of the Mormon cult are doctrinally and theologically in complete opposition to the Absolute Truth of God’s Word. There is no common ground. If Mormonism is true, then the Christian faith is a complete lie. There has never been any question from the moment Smith’s cult began that it was a work of Satan and those who follow their false teachings will die and spend eternity in hell.”

Who could remain unconvinced by the waves of certainty coming off this man like so many flecks of spittle? And here’s his conclusion.

“Romney getting elected president will ultimately lead millions of souls to the eternal flames of hell!”

Eh. Cheney tried that one against Kerry in ’04.

I’m shocked to see this level of religious bigotry in this day and age. Why anyone would be so prejudiced against Satan is beyond me. Especially after all he’s done for the Republican Party.

It’s not true that a vote for Romney is a vote for Satan. Satan’s a Libertarian, for one thing. To help you compare, I present a handy info chart: Romney v. Satan.

  Romney
Satan
Experience Governor of Massachusetts Prince of Darkness
Accomplishments Responsible for rescuing Salt Lake Olympics Responsible for existence of evil, human suffering, temptation, and international banking conspiracies
Ambitions Become US President Enslave the children of men, and lead the world into hell.
Same diff.
Physical description Nice hair. Nice horns.
Favourite book Battlefield Earth, by L. Ron Hubbard Battlefield Earth, by L. Ron Hubbard
Tough on terror? Maybe Yes; extensive experience in punishment and torture; perfect as a Republican nominee
Man of faith? Yes Yes

Who comes out ahead? I think it’s up in the air for now. In fact, I think the Republicans might be missing out on an opportunity for a great ticket:


They’d pick up some center-left votes, and they wouldn’t lose any of the evangelical conservatives, who’d vote for Satan over a Democrat anyway.

Deconversion stories: The way forward

I had occasion to chat with a student recently. He was raised in a religious family, but has realised that he doesn’t believe in any gods. The realisation has not been particularly easy. I got the feeling that, while he hadn’t believed for a long time, he was only just beginning to admit this to himself, and to solidify his identity as a non-believer. He seemed poised on the verge of some kind of decision about what to do next, and he was concerned about the effect that his deconversion would have on his family.

The first thing I did was to congratulate him on his sound reasoning and judgement! I also noted that we might have had some experiences in common. I had a deconversion ‘click moment’ about a year or so ago, but it was a long time in coming. While I identified very closely as a Mormon, I was also learning concepts about evidence, and how to evaluate ideas. As a result, I found that my religious knowledge was becoming less and less relevant. Rather than working my secular knowledge into my spirituality, I now found myself trying to defend my religious faith from the onslaught of remorseless reason, and these attempts seemed increasingly dishonest. At last I was able to consider the idea of the non-existence of gods, devils, spirits, and demons without panicking, and then to realise that the doctrine of theism was not well-supported, and very likely untrue.

There are some differences in our stories. For instance, the people in my life have taken my deconversion very well. I’m aware they don’t like the approach I’m taking to life, but they’re still my friends and family. I think it might be somewhat easier for them because I haven’t changed my behaviours — I still don’t smoke or drink, and the only commandments I disobey concern spending hours at church and giving the Church forkloads of money. For this student, it’s a different story. His religion ostracises its ex-believers, and it’s going to have an impact on the people closest to him. He’ll have to take a peripheral role in his social group, and perhaps in his family. They may cut him off. He may not see them again. And what a shame that would be. They’d be missing the chance to associate with a smart, great young person.

Why do we atheists put ourselves through it? Why not just go with the flow, keep our doubts to ourselves, and stay in the organisation? It’s not a bad life. They teach about being nice. Well, nice to other believers, at least. Maybe we’d eventually be able to deal with being slightly out of step with our peers — hey, some of us actually enjoy it. Why not just stay undercover and enjoy the benefits?

The first reason I’d suggest taking the road to deconversion is that when one sees the religion for what it is — a system that people have made up — association with believers becomes less tolerable. This was particularly true for me in a ‘Bible literalist’ church (which Mormons are, though not everyone sees it that way). People would swallow amazing amounts of nonsense if spoken from the pulpit. I remember going to a Sunday School lesson about Noah and the Flood (post-deconversion), and realising that I was surrounded by people who actually believed that Noah literally got all those animals on a literal ark. (I marvelled that once I’d literally believed it too.) At that point, the people of my former faith seemed like aliens to me. I wondered how it was that they could believe these fantastic things in the absense of any physical evidence at all. Perhaps it was that they believed in God, and if one can believe in a god that can do anything, all the rest could follow. But my standard of evidence was higher.

Could I have saved myself some trouble by taking the Flood as figurative, in a church of literalists? Only if I wanted to have a lifetime of arguments in Sunday School. Or shut up completely — but I’m not good at shutting up. Too frustrating. And if the Flood is figurative, what about the Creation? What about the Tower of Babel? The parting of the Red Sea? The miracles of Jesus? What about the Resurrection? Why couldn’t they be figurative too? And if they were figurative, then there might be no literal resurrection, and no life after death — just like atheism. So without literalism, the much-touted ‘comfort’ offered by religion evaporates. And literalism doesn’t last long when sound evidence is required. Nope — might as well save a step and not believe. It’s certainly cheaper and less time-consuming.

Another reason I chose to ‘go public’ with my lack of faith is that I’m trying to be a more honest person, and I thought that pretending to believe would be inauthentic. I view atheism as honest in the same way as science is honest: you observe facts as best you can, and try not to say more than the facts will tell you. And if the facts tell you something new, you have to stay open to it. I sometimes tell people that if some solid reproducible evidence of a god’s existence came to light, I’d happily become a believer again. I’m not holding my breath though.

The road for my student — and for any recovering believer — will not be easy, whichever way he may take. There are costs for not believing. For me, coming out as an atheist meant not participating in church ordinances. Baptism and priesthood ordinations are, to me, symbols with no eternal significance, but they can acquire significant social meanings. My dad performed both of those ordinances for me; if I don’t, am I abnegating my fatherly duties? And so a good friend baptised and ordained my sons this year, while I watched and realised that it had to be that way. It was what I chose when I decided to accept an evidence-based worldview.

While deconversion isn’t easy, it is possible, and it is worthwhile. You can think more clearly. You can make decisions based on how they’ll affect people without worrying about offending some shadowy being. You can teach your children how to evaluate ideas, which will serve them for the rest of their lives. You can overcome a lifetime of religious training, centuries of philosophies and social patterns, and millions of years of human evolutionary perceptual weirdness, using only your mind. I view my deconversion as my greatest intellectual acheivement to date (although it’s a small list).

Leaving the religion of my youth behind was challenging, but I’ve come through the other side of it okay. And I’m finding that being an atheist can be a noble and good thing to be.

Friday Random Five wants to be your monkey.

The disk I can’t stop listening to this week is Peace Love Death Metal by the Eagles of Death Metal. No, it’s not actually a death metal disc; call it unreconstructed sexy-n-satanic rock star posturing, with forked tongue in cheek. It would be a barely amusing schtick if the songwriting weren’t so rock-solid and the straight-up rockin’ grooves so repeatably listenable. The production leans toward minimal instrumentation, with everything right up front and a little bit gritty. They love reprises and handclaps, and they leave in a lot of studio banter between tracks, which reflects the mood during the two days it took to record this album. Check it out, but prepare for a sore neck from all the head-bobbling.

Sea Legs by The Shins
Album: Wincing the Night Away
Ah, time to check out that new Shins album I’ve been meaning to listen to. This song sounds cerebral and well-written. Will I feel like listening to it after it’s over? Does it mark me as an old fart if I say it reminds me of an updated version of Modern English? That was a cerebral band of good writers in the 80’s, kids. Maybe you haven’t lived long enough to have the music you like go out of fashion, but I have. Several times. I think I’m on my fifth cycle. Can you tell I’m turning 40 this week?

Nightminds by Missy Higgins
Album: The Sound of White
Missy Higgins was discovered by Triple J in one of their ‘Unearthed’ competitions. She seemed to have it all together and ready to go; a smoky voice, catchy songwriting, and thoughtful lyrics (check ‘The River’ for an arresting listen). So why do I care so little for this kind of music? Why does this debut album feel like her ninth? Does it play it too safe? Is it that I’m not enough of an Adult Contemporary old fart to enjoy this? That’s a good interpretation, and the one I’m leaning toward.

Agent Orange by Depeche Mode
Album: Music for the Masses
I never knew how to take this album. Were they ‘selling out’ (since we all cared about this at one point in history), and leaving the title of the album as a clue? Or was it the next stage in Depeche Mode’s progress that would continue what they started with ‘Black Celebration’? One thing is clear: they could never have managed this song on an album like ‘Some Great Reward’.

I Sometimes Wish I Were Dead by Depeche Mode
Album: Speak & Spell (UK)
See, this is what I’m talking about. A very Vince Clarke song. All the early electronica has a sweetness and innocence to it, especially this album.

I just found out something: Vince Clarke is not gay. Would you have guessed that? It’s just that I always listened to “What’s Your Name?” and saw Erasure on TV with their white outfits, and thought: I may not have gaydar, but I know that everyone associated with this music is extremely gay, including the caterers.

And then I see on Blake’s site: http://www.thefirstcut.net/ a very touching story about how he and his wife got to meet meet Andy and Vince through Vince’s wife Tracey.

Does this mean that no homosexuals were involved in the making of Speak and Spell? This is really doing my head in. I thought R. Crumb was dead for a long time, and he isn’t, and that had the same effect.

Mother by Red House Painters
Album: Red House Painters
This song is thirteen minutes long, and it takes itself very seriously, but it was the early nineties, so the Red House Painters got there first and I won’t begrudge them.

Can I resist a bonus sixth when it’s Severed Heads? No.

Harold and Cindy Hospital by Severed Heads
Album: Bulkhead
There is nothing like this song anywhere, before or since. It’s an industrial tango with simian panting and lurid orchestral riffs. You will know in the first ten seconds whether you love it or hate it. Maybe it’s not possible to love it anymore if you’re just coming to it now.

Latest addition to the growing reading list

Funny how I hear a lot of people saying “I’m no fan of Hitchens, but…”

Yes, there’s a lot not to like about Christopher Hitchens. He was for the Iraq War, he acts boorish on chat shows, and one gets the impression that if he were to do the voicework on his own audiobooks, half of it would be incomprehensibly slurrred.

But the guy writes like a champ, and so I’m glad to see him add his weight to the recent wave of New Atheist books. Check the Slate excerpt from ‘God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything’.

The mildest criticism of religion is also the most radical and the most devastating one. Religion is man-made. Even the men who made it cannot agree on what their prophets or redeemers or gurus actually said or did. Still less can they hope to tell us the “meaning” of later discoveries and developments which were, when they began, either obstructed by their religions or denounced by them. And yet—the believers still claim to know! Not just to know, but to know everything. Not just to know that god exists, and that he created and supervised the whole enterprise, but also to know what “he” demands of us—from our diet to our observances to our sexual morality. In other words, in a vast and complicated discussion where we know more and more about less and less, yet can still hope for some enlightenment as we proceed, one faction—itself composed of mutually warring factions—has the sheer arrogance to tell us that we already have all the essential information we need. Such stupidity, combined with such pride, should be enough on its own to exclude “belief” from the debate. The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species. It may be a long farewell, but it has begun and, like all farewells, should not be protracted.

The other excepts, in which he deals with Islam and Mormonism summarily, are worth a read.

Older posts Newer posts

© 2026 Good Reason

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑