fubintien

I used to think I had a really good answer for why there is suffering in a world where an all-powerful, all-loving God exists. It's true that theodicean arguments have been around since the 18th century (possibly longer), and that they are varied, subtle and complex.

Not very satisfying though, as is evidenced by the continued popularity of the debate.

That is why, I believe, the theodicean argument put forth by Jehovah's Witnesses is so attractive to so many, especially those who have seen some of the suffering that the world has to offer. It goes a little something like this:

In the Garden of Eden, Satan challenges God's right to rule the universe by convincing Adam and Eve they'd be better off without Him. In the face of this rebellion, God has no choice but to allow this challenge to be answered, as his standards of perfect justice would dictate. So, instead of quashing the rebellion right then and there, which might be construed by humans and the angels as his unwillingness (or inability) to face the challenge, he allows the world itself and fallen mankind to come under the rulership of Satan. God remains the ultimate sovereign of the universe, but allows Satan the Devil to become the de facto ruler of the world, a world no longer under the divine protection of God. God's reason for this is to show all creation that mankind will fail miserably at ruling itself in Satan's world, thus proving Satan a liar, and vindicating God's rightful sovereignty over the Earth and everything in it.

This would seem to be the perfect explanation for suffering: it's actually Satan who's in control of the world, there is no Divine Protection (thus natural disasters/diseases), all added to the fact that humans are imperfect with free will. God doesn't cause suffering, he simply allows it to happen in order to answer Satan's challenge. In fact, God has never caused suffering directly. Plus, very soon, God will step in when he feels the challenge has been sufficiently answered and wipe away all suffering and those who cause it, including Satan.

Very tidy, and quite satisfying. Or at least that's what I thought. Here's why it doesn't work:

1.) God himself has already violated this original premise. In Eden, he refused to destroy the rebels, both human and spirit creatures, in order to comply with his own perfect standard of justice, and let the challenge be answered. To explain this, Jehovah's Witnesses usually use the illustration of a teacher faced with a rebellious student who gets up in front of the class and says that he would be a better teacher. Pretty soon, some of the students start to side with the rebellious student, so the teacher decides to let the student have a chance at teaching instead of simply removing the rebels. That way, when the rebellious student fails, the teacher has proven unequivocally to the students that only he is qualified to teach the class.

This makes a lot of sense, but consider the following: what if the teacher, upon seeing more and more of the students in his class side with the rebellious student, decides to pause the experiment and remove all those students loyal to the original rebel, leaving just the one or two students who were obedient from the start? In this scenario, the original intent of the experiment is lost, as the teacher has used his authority to maneuver things in a way that benefits his position.

Surprisingly, according to the Bible, this is exactly what God does. Not too long after the rebellion in Eden, the Bible says that God "saw that the badness of man was abundant in the earth," and that "he felt regrets that he had made men in the earth." Thus, he declares: "I am going to wipe men whom I have created off the surface of the ground," except obedient Noah, "who found favor in [his] eyes." (Gen 6:5-8) God proceeds to bring a global deluge, destroying all of humanity and the animals, save for Noah, his family, and the few animals they were instructed to save.

Even if you excuse God's intervention in the lives of the Israelites as his "chosen people", helping them along their path to becoming a great nation, the intervention of the global flood is too big to ignore. In one fell swoop, God not only negates the reason given by Jehovah's Witnesses for his allowing suffering (i.e. so that Satan may try his hand at rulership without God's intervention, only to later be proven wrong), he also violates his own standard of justice by doing something that tips the scales in his favor. Any believer knows that God is perfect and cannot do injustice, so only two possibilities remain: either the Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong in their theodicy, or God does not exist.

2.) In this case, "allowing" suffering is the same as "causing" it. First off, let's be clear about something: the Bible states very plainly that God has indeed been the direct cause of suffering in the past. God tells Moses to "take vengeance for the sons of Israel upon the Midianites," but the Israelites don't stop at killing the soldiers and rulers of their enemy. No, they're explicitly told to kill all the children and all the women, except for the virgins, who they were to keep alive for themselves (Num. 31:7-18) God also personally brings suffering upon his own people: "And I also, for my part, gave you people cleanness of teeth [famine] in all your cities and want of bread in all your places; but you did not come back to me." (Amos 4:6)

Even if you could explain away these and the many other examples of suffering brought by God as punishment for bad behavior, it is still suffering directly caused by God. Plus, you still have a moral deficit: is it really possible for a reasonable person to believe that there was no one innocent caught up in the wholesale slaughter of those nations, or in the slow grinding death of the famine? Should innocent children die violently, sometimes dashed against the rocks in front of their parents (Isa 13:16), and virgins be forced into sex slavery, for the trespasses of their elders?

But even excusing all that, there is still an important point to be made: for God, "allowing" suffering is the same as "causing" suffering. According to the theodicy of Jehovah's Witnesses, all of the suffering that is happening right now is being carried out by Satan, sinful humankind, and an out-of-control mother nature. However, all of this suffering could not happen unless it is permitted by God. God is all-powerful and could stop all the world's suffering in an instant, if he wanted to. At this point, Jehovah's Witnesses will agree, and offer another illustration to show that this still fits within their worldview: Parents will sometimes need to allow their children to go through a painful medical operation. This will no doubt cause the child some pain and suffering, but the child will be better for it in the end. In other words, God wants to stop the suffering, but he has to let it keep going for our own good.

While this illustration might seem reasonable on the surface, it takes no effort at all to expose it for what it really is: fatuous nonsense. How does a child going through a calculated, precise medical procedure compare with a Ugandan girl tied naked to a tree and continuously raped by soldiers over a period of 5 days? Is there any "greater good" that can come out of allowing that to happen? Wouldn't you be obliged to stop that from happening if you could? God can, but he chooses not to. A more appropriate illustration would be that of a father standing by while his son is savagely beaten by gang members in their front yard, with the idea that upon seeing it, the neighbors will know just how bad the gang is. . . oh, and don't worry: the police will be by soon to clean everything up. I dare you to think of a more disgusting portrait of "morals". If you were that father, you would spend your last ounce of strength, your last drop of blood to defend your son, no matter the issue, even if you knew the police were just around the corner. Why doesn't God do the same? Jehovah's Witnesses say it's for our own good.

My personal feeling mirrors that of the character Ivan from Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov: Even if God could reveal some grand purpose behind all the suffering in the world, especially of the children, I wouldn't accept it. Even if it were true, there is nothing that could make it moral. It wouldn't be worth one single innocent tear of a starving child, not one cry for mercy from a beaten woman, nor one clenched fist of a father cradling his murdered son. I would listen politely while God explained his grand purpose, the greater meaning behind the suffering of so many, and would reply simply:

"No thank you, God."

I'm so thankful to know now that explanations like the ones offered by Jehovah's Witnesses and other religions are not just ridiculous because of their being based on the disgusting Bronze-age myths of illiterate Middle Eastern goat herders, but because they can't even stand up to scrutiny within their own theology.

Suffering hasn't gone away, unfortunately, but maybe now we can get down to figuring out how to actually stop it.

I'm starting down a new road, a new interesting venture.

How will it turn out?

Will it be life-changing?

Will it offer a soul-crushing defeat?

Will I be wildly successful beyond anyone's wildest dreams, pwning n00bz left and right, buying small countries as I see fit, hosting international wealth summits at my palatial beach-front GigaMansion with every possible toy and gadget there for the taking, to which I of course show up late cuz I was having too much fun driving my $8 billion dollar Italian sports cars around sweeping moutain-coast highways, listening to my latest chart-topping smash on the radi--- *qbk*

Anyway, we'll see how it goes. Wish me luck! Er, unless you don't believe in that sort of thing . . . then just wish me . . . SUCCESS! :P

I've never really listened to Christian music radio before. However, today while I was driving in an unfamiliar area, I could hear KCRW fighting with some other station using the same FM channel. I tuned the radio down one notch and *BAM*-- perfect, crystal-clear Christian radio comes blaring out of the speakers.

So, I listened for a bit. Two things:

1) Wow. Most of the songs had absolutely pristine production value. No different from any of the current chart-topping mega hits churned out by the trillion-a-year recording giants. Obviously, the Lord has smiled upon this industry.

2) I cannot imagine anything more mind-numbingly boring than listening to this station, and not because of the type of content. Each and every song, while of course using different words, had the exact same theme. Imagine if every love song were about the same woman/man, and you'll start to understand what I'm talking about. It was almost as bad as listening to modern hip-hop radio (i.e. horrendously formulaic lyrical/musical content). After about 4 songs, I had to turn it off. It was like one long song, like a continuous, subliminal-reinforcement program.

Christopher Hitchens, in his latest book, sneeringly derides the faithful for their weekly Sunday "belief reaffirmation" sessions. I guess modern Xian radio is for those for whom weekly is not enough: apparently they need daily-- nay! hourly-- reinforcement to believe what they do.

Heh, reminds me of this Sinfest comic: http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=2727

I took the class/exam for my Food Handlers Safety Certification yesterday. It's the same class that hotel and restaurant managers need to take to be able to do their job. It was a rather eye-opening affair.

I guess I always knew it was easy to get food contaminated while preparing it. . . it's just I didn't know how easy it was. They showed us behind-the-scenes videos of certain restaurant chains. . .

Dude.

Anyway, I realized that my personal food handling practices, while for the most part sanitary and acceptable, still needed some adjustments: like never placing raw meats on shelves above ready-to-eat foods in the refrigerator, and always keeping foods being served pot-luck/buffet style at 135˚F (I'll be avoiding the luke-warm chicken at BBQs from now on). D:

Interesting nugget: Have you ever seen this commercial? (http://youtube.com/watch?v=amtqhKk0hLo) The guy that taught our class (a young Asian gent) is the assistant standing next to the older Chinese businessman (Mr. Stinky Fish Face). Apparently, he knew someone involved in the production of the ad, and they let him be in it.

. . .yeah.

It was parked in front of my parents house while X and I were inside for like 30 minutes. Some dickhead (I'm not exactly sure which dickhead yet) from their neighborhood called the cops and had it silently towed like a fucking pussy instead of being a man and just knocking on the door and asking me to move it. The best thing is, it was parked in front of our garage! It was blocking nothing!

So some dick-smack cunt-ass with the approximate intelligence of a shit-chucking ape must've decided it was "the right thing to do", and had a car parked in front of someone else's OPEN garage (with a light on!) towed at 11:00pm.

. . . I can imagine the smug twat tossing off in satisfaction as he watched my car being towed from his bedroom window, a brief break from his nightly farm porn masturbatory session; his frigid wife downstairs sex-chatting with black guys on her computer whilst simultaneously spending her husband's money on copious amounts of pricey fashion bullshit.

Sorry Jesus, I can't bring myself to love this enemy. Now I can imagine myself as an H. R. Giger Alien and introducing his cranial cavity to the thrusting rape-violence of my piston-like inner-mouth attack (photo included below for your convenience).

Today we had our big move day: we used Billy's truck and moved all of our big items and boxes over to the new place. We got to see the new place painted for the first time, and they did a really nice job. X will no doubt have fun decorating the place once we have a second to unpack and breathe.

We really like this new place so far. The apartment came with all the necessary appliances and looks basically brand new. The new carpets, big bathroom and crown moulding are all huge +'s. Plus, the location is perfect for us, being only 2 minutes from our old place (as shown on the following handy map):


I'll update with more pics as we take 'em.

So, I got the offer letter from the company today, after what felt like 1,000 years of contiguous waiting.

Money's good, bennies are tight. Word. I'm happy.

This keeps my streak of getting hired alive: as of this point, I have never been on an interview where I wasn't subsequently offered the job (I didn't always take it, but . . . )

Does that sound arrogant? I didn't mean to sound arrogant, it's just that, well . . .

I'm awesome. Awesomer than everyone else! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhaha- *choke*

Nah, just pretty excited is all. New LifeChapter™ pap.

We just got back from seeing Iron Man. It was absolutely fantastic! I don't say that a lot about movies, especially "big summer blockbusters". So here's why:

1.) Robert Downey Jr. His portrayal of Tony Stark is perfect: a likable a**hole. His interactions with the other main characters are spot-on, nuanced and never forced. Apparently, much of the dialogue was improvised by him, and that about says it. I've always liked him, and he's becoming one of my favorite actors.

2.) A great story. A comic book story, obviously, but grounded firmly in reality and at the same time intellectually engaging as well. Stark is not a real "superhero": his power comes from elbow-grease and ingenuity. It's part of what made Batman Begins a masterpiece. Oh yeah, and it's funny. Not "HEY LOOK I'M A ROBOT THAT TALKS LIKE A RAPPER MAN LOL!!!111" funny. Smart funny.

3.) Characters, characters, characters. I cared about every one of them, and they don't spend too much time on backstory for them either, not even Stark. To make me care about the characters so quickly is a testament to the good directing of Jon Favreau, and the great acting of the entire phenomenal cast. Not a mediocre performance in the bunch!

4.) Heart. Interestingly, Stark's actual heart plays a pivotal role in this movie, but I'm talking about the "feeling" encapsulated in the film. All too often, movies with promise fall flat because of leaving out this important ingredient. This one has it, and just enough of it too. It's refreshing to watch an entertaining movie that you can actually care about!

BTW, notice how I didn't mention anything about CGI special effects? Iron Man has 'em, tons. But they work to support the story, not to be the story.

Go see it. You can thank me later.

Well, I've just had my second interview for the job I'm trying to get. Like the first one, this one went really well; I figure I can't have really done anything or said anything to make it go better. So, I'm taking comfort in that fact.

The only thing is, the President of the company, who was the one who interviewed me today, was not a terribly expressive person. I could tell she liked me, as our banter was relaxed and pleasant. However, she didn't say a whole lot of positive, reinforcing type things about me. It was a bit unnerving, because the Vice President who interviewed me last week was like all but gushing about how great a fit I'd be for this position. I know it's meaningless and to be chalked up to different personalities, but it still threw me a bit. I think I hid that well, though.

Anyway, I'm happy about the way it went and the Prez said they want to move quickly on filling the position. . . so hopefully I won't have to wait too long for an answer.

I hope. D:

I made this short clip to demonstrate a little utility card sleight that I created. It actually has nothing to do with the "smearing" part of the effect. It's just a move that happens right at the beginning (should be invisible if I'm worth my salt!) that allows me to show that the card at the beginning and the end is indeed just that: a single, normal playing card.

I'm actually pretty proud of this, as it could fairly be dubbed a "magician fooler". That is, a move that fools magicians who already think they know the method of the trick. If you already know the Erdnase Change that's employed here, you'll see what I'm talking about.

Anywho, enjoy! :D

I went with XW to the Orange County Pet Expo yesterday. It's a huge outdoor/indoor fair and trade show for the pet industry. The really cool thing is that all of the local representative groups and clubs for specific dog breeds come and set up booths. Of course, they bring along their pooches! The same goes for all other types of pets, including cats, birds, reptiles and small animals.

Most of the groups, besides being a way for owners of a specific breed of dog to get together, are rescue organizations. So when someone thinks it'd be great to own a huge Newfoundland only to later learn they require a lot of work, the So. Cal Newfoundland Rescue Group will come in, take care of the dog and find a qualified owner for it. The typically operate on a donation basis, and these shows are a big way that they're able to make a bit of money to continue their work. So, X and I were happy to donate a little bit to each of the groups that also did the rescue work.

I noticed something different about the people that ran these dog organizations: outward appearance-wise they were completely normal, but their demeanor was very different from they type of people you normally find at trade shows in other industries (let me make clear that I am not referring to those that were manning pet product booths; they're about as text-book as you'd imagine).

No, these people seemed so happy, and so at peace, and you could see their contentment in sharing with you information about their particular breed. It made me think about how dogs have been domesticated by humans for 15,000 years, how when humans began to migrate to different places around the planet, dogs migrated with them. It makes sense that we'd be closest to dogs out of any other animal, as scientists even believe they were the very first animal domesticated by humans.

No wonder having a dog brings so much joy to people (I know it did for me!). Our species have 15,000 years of friendship between us, and it's most likely built into our genes! To see that realized in the personalities of so many people (and dogs!) in the same place at the same time was a sobering and uplifting experience.

I've just become a member of a new music sharing site, on par with the pink holy mecca of bygone eras.

It's kind of strange: it's like coming outside into a bright and sunny day, after being inside with the windows shut for a year. No longer need I feel the hustle and put-on of the iTunes Music Store. No longer must I be content with poor-quality and limited choice. No longer must I sit and sulk and wish for the musical days of yesteryear! Ok, perhaps that's a bit too dramatic.

But seriously, it feels really good to be exposed to new music again, and to give back to a community that encourages sharing and . . . well, community! All is right with the world again. . . or at least one thing has been righted.

Meanwhile, the big record companies continue to stumble on in their paleolithic virtual reality, where record executives still snort pure Colombian coke off the hood of their DeLorean whilst signing bands to ridiculously one-sided contracts, oblivious to the massive continent-sized meteor hurtling toward their sorry little world.

Only too soon, only too soon. It'd be nice to have a music business that is in the hands of musicians. Wait, who am I kidding? This is America: Land of Opportunism-- I mean, Opportunity!

Ugh. I digress.

Yay for new music! \o/

I've always had a problem with writers and orators explaining scientific concepts in an overtly philosophical way. It seems to me that science and philosophy are two rather different things, and to use one to describe the other is like using dance to describe art: the expressions made by the one, while perhaps beautiful in their own right, are simply not effective in communicating meaningfully about the other.

This is especially noticeable when reading about evolutionary science here in the U.S. I've come to realize that much of what we're taught regarding evolution here is based on the rhetoric of Gould. By extension, much of the creationist rebuttals aimed at evolution are really aimed at Gould's abstract theories (i.e. "If we came from apes, why are apes still here?" and "I've never seen a donkey give birth to a pigeon!" etc). His writing regarding the Cambrian explosion has lead many (or, at least myself) to believe that those rebuttals were really spot on.

Then comes Richard Dawkins. His book Unweaving The Rainbow is wonderfully written, and contains none of the abstract writing style mentioned above. What he does do, however, is give that kind of writing a great name:

Bad Science Poetry

After having read a lot of bad science poetry, and a lot of creationist rebuttals to said poetry, I'm glad to say that I've realized that I'm not alone in not getting it. It used to disappoint me that I couldn't really grasp what the writer was trying to get across, leading me to believe that perhaps science wasn't my "thing". But after reading some of what might be called Good Science Poetry, I'm realizing the problem wasn't with the reader, but was with the thing being read. That's a pretty powerful realization . . . for me anyway.

Plus, I now have something catchy to call all that useless dreck. Thanks Dicky D!

Today we went and looked at an apartment near our house. It's a really nice place: very clean, new-looking, with only a hint of that "I live in Southern California so I'm better than you" style. It comes with everything appliance-wise, as well as covered parking (which is like getting free heroin). Me likes.

The funny thing was, as the guy was giving us a tour of the complex, I noticed a slight tinge of an accent coming from his otherwise normal 20-something speech. It was very slight at first, so much so that I couldn't really tell why it stood out to me. So, of course, I asked him whether or not he grew up in So. Cal.

"No," he said, "I actually grew up in New York."

I asked, "Really? What part of New York?"

The answer came accompanied by the ThunderHammer of Obviousness™:

"Buffalo."

Heh, I can recognize that not-quite-midwestern-not-quite-chicago lilt anywhere. I think it was when he said "hikeen" for "hiking" and "mahm" for "mom". Also, another amusing note: his uncle just happens to be Vic Carucci, a famous sports writer for The Buffalo News. I lied about having read his uncle's stuff to make him feel better about dropping his name. Does that make me a bad person? :O

Sorry, universe: I just don't get all hot and bothered over written descriptions of how well a certain large man did something physically demanding and/or completely arbitrary with a ball/stick/other man, and then renegotiated his contract in order to receive millions of dollars/trophy wives/recording deals for doing so.

But that's another topic for another day.

Well, well, well. . .

I've been wanting to do this for a long time, actually. It feels kind of strange, as this will indeed be the first time since high school English class that I've actually taken the time to write in a journal.

I'm thinking that a goodly portion of what I'll be writing here are my various rants and rages about life. This comes after a suggestion from my brother, who says that it will perhaps reduce the current red-zone level of toxic rage that has built itself up inside my body, much like the Xenomorph chest-burster of Alien fame, ready to explode in a bloody mess of space-violence at any given moment. So, what better way to start my new LiveJournal than with a dose of caustic annoyance? :D

Here's my problem:

I've realized recently that I have what musician's call relative pitch. That is, I can typically tell immediately the distance between two notes by just hearing them played in succession. This is extremely helpful in tuning instruments, such as guitar, because I needn't bother with electronic tuners. However, it just so happens that I'm currently playing in a band with other musician's that, while being pretty accomplished in their own right, are most certainly not in possession of that same type of tonal sensitivity. At the beginning of practice, they spend copious amounts of time using their electronic tuners, apparently tuning their guitars in a very precision manner, only to realize that they are miles away from being in tune with each other.

Previously, I actually taught them how to tune their instruments to each other, and yet for some reason, they never can get it right. Oh sure, they'll work at it for about one minute, then say, "OK! We've got it!" We go into the first song and *fwap* the out-of-tune cacophony coming from their instruments is like an aural train wreck. I then have to help them tune, note-by-note. And I'm the drummer! How is it possible that they can't hear how off they are? Is it an actual mental deficiency, or are they just lazy? I used to think it was the latter, but now I'm not so sure. But one thing is for sure:

A musician with bad pitch is like a writer that can't read.