I couldn’t ruin the documentary.

Posted on

After much trial and tribulation, I saw a movie! In theaters! No, it was quite a feat. It came out Thursday, and I wanted to see it right then or more reasonably, the very next day. But I put it off for the benefit of others. Then I planned to see it on Saturday, but I put that off in order to take a friend who would like it. Alas, things happen and Sunday was getting difficult too! So Monday? Maybe?

No. We made it work. As it turns out, I was able to take a couple of my kids to go see this brand new Intelligent Design documentary, IN THEATERS! We hardly ever make it to the movie theater.

Anyway, now we've seen The Story of Everything. When I first heard tell of it and saw that it promised great production value, oh man I was excited. I was also happy to see the names involved. It is always great to see John Lennox grace a project. I saw David Berlinski was in it who is very fun. And it was great to see Tim McGrew involved. For me, every chat with Tim has been an encounter with remarkable generosity, passion, and scholarship; and even though he is a Grandmaster, he has never beaten me in chess. (No, we've never played, but that's beside the point…)

So, all of that said, it promised great things. Add to that the fact that it touches upon the kalam, and that I have long felt that there should be a wonder-filled, professionally done documentary on the kalam cosmological argument: I was excited.

So the question is, did it live up to the excitement? No. It lived up to higher expectations. See, I had imagined the whole thing would be strict pop-appeal. But it was a real documentary. Thankfully, it had the technical richness too. (After all, it wouldn't do if the science of an ID documentary looked 9th-grade next to a Veritasium video.) My expectations were lower, so I wasn't ready for it at first. Like sipping a coke when you were expecting orange pop, a jarring but welcome surprise. Then again, I had driven for hours by the time I got to my seat, so I was tired and hungry which made the rude people nearby more annoying. (Yay the theater! 🙂 ) And so maybe even the more technical content flowed with the timing and charm of a Marvel movie. *shrugs* Better to have it either way.

“More explosions! Boo!”

No that wasn't me. The production was astounding. And overall, I had an amazing time. Really. Despite the circumstances it was great, especially when they got into the mechanics of the cell. The explanations and visuals blew me away. In fact, my kids liked these more technical parts the best, and they are the parts I most want to watch again.

So, I highly recommend checking out this show… if you like documentaries. Just don't go tired and hungry. 🙂

Penjammin grew up in a labyrinthine cavern. Later he ran with the wolves and lived every moment marinated in the sweet scent of his game, until pirates landed and… See About for full story, and get his eletter at penjams.com/subscribe.

Conservatives conserve nothing?

Posted on

Really? Zero? Looking only at losses, sure, that seems to make sense, but look around—broader than that.

“There is still good in the world, Mr. Frodo.”

Why is that good still there? Is it because its enemy is faint or doesn't want to destroy it? Have things suddenly stopped falling apart? No. When Mordor kept gaining ground, despite the efforts of its resistance, did the resistance thereby conserve nothing? No. They conserved all that was left.

To anyone not drowning masochistically in newspaper headlines, much much good remains today, including much of the long‑inherited good that conservatives love. Had the likes of Kamala or Clinton encountered no resistance, much of it would be gone.

Now, I’m not praising political conservatives. I’m only saying there’s this thing, the long‑inherited good. It’s neither the novel good nor the inherited bad. And much of its endurance is due to those who love it: conservatives. Yes, conservatives can do much better. I did a podcast episode on that with @iowancapreborn, so I agree. But so what? Thinking it means they’ve conserved nothing only means someone is dwelling on the losses.

Penjammin grew up in a labyrinthine cavern. Later he ran with the wolves and lived every moment marinated in the sweet scent of his game, until pirates landed and… See About for full story, and get his eletter at penjams.com/subscribe.

Religion Reboot?

Posted on

This is a bit of my episode with Drs. Win Corduan and Nace Howell on Mormonism and world religions. Hear the whole episode below. Enjoy.

Penjammin: After describing Mormonism as a religion (so in terms of, less its history but more its theory, I guess you might say) — [There's] its idea of the supernatural. Is it monotheistic or henotheistic or whatever? And then also there's Is it a salvation-oriented religion? And if so, what does salvation entail? (Saved to what? from what?) We talked about that. And then also what's the mechanism? to put crudely. What's the how-to to get right with heaven? … there was some a matter of works involved in some way. So, what does that sound most similar to, for you guys?

Nace: I would say it compares most closely to Islam, as far as world religions are concerned. The reason I would say that it closely compares to it is because of the number of things that we can compare it to. You can compare it to Christianity because it says the word Jesus Christ in its name. But I would say that there are more across-the-board similarities to Islam.

Penjammin: Like what?

Nace: So I wrote about seven of these similarities in my book, and I find that there's more like maybe 25 or 30 similarities. And . . .

Hear more:

Penjammin grew up in a labyrinthine cavern. Later he ran with the wolves and lived every moment marinated in the sweet scent of his game, until pirates landed and… See About for full story, and get his eletter at penjams.com/subscribe.

Apples and Oranges

Posted on

This is a bit of my episode with Dr. Nace Howell on the nature of Mormonism. Hear the whole episode below. Enjoy.

Penjammin: So if you don't mind, can we go through some of these points here? Because like you said, this little tweet here is remarkably typical. It's almost a feat, an accomplishment.

Nace: Absolutely. Yep.

. . .

Penjammin: Okay. He starts off as a lifelong member [of the LDS], so he's got some some cred there. But he also claims to be a Christian. [By the way, that's] lifelong member of the “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”. To me, that's also PR.

Nace: Absolutely. Yeah.

Penjammin: Just like, “No, no, no, no, we're not a different church. This is what you should call us.” It reminds me of the trans talk. “Use my pronouns; affirm my ideology with your own language.” And so “Don't call us Mormons. Call us this.” Eh. I want to talk how I want to talk, but we'll be respectful, you know?

Okay. Here's the first bullet point. (It's got, like, a lot of points.) But the first one is that “Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary.” And he cites Luke. Okay, so what's wrong with that, Nace?

Nace: Yeah. So I would say, like in general, all of these are based on a fundamentally different Jesus. So, what's going on here is you know, they'll say that Jesus existed before the creation, and he was with the father before the creation of the world, according to, say, that second one there, John 1:1-3. And they'll say that he's the only way. They'll say, like Acts 4:12, he's the only way to salvation. They'll say that he rose from the dead. Like I said, these are typical arguments. But the problem is that this sounds a lot like what Christians believe, but it is fundamentally different. And that fundamental difference is because the Mormon Jesus is a created being. So when they're talking about their Jesus, he is fundamentally different from the Jesus that we know as Christians…

Hear more:

Heads up: Due to a goof on my end, the audio came out in need of some help, but after much time and effort, the episode is saved! Some warble is noticeable, but it is now an enjoyable listen. *takes bow*

Penjammin grew up in a labyrinthine cavern. Later he ran with the wolves and lived every moment marinated in the sweet scent of his game, until pirates landed and… See About for full story, and get his eletter at penjams.com/subscribe.

Pushy Puritans Don’t Get a Pass

Posted on

“You shouldn’t force your morality onto others.” Yep. I ran across that today. Some responses to that idea leave much to be desired. They reveal an eagerness to use the state to mold the behavior of strangers in ways that have nothing to do with justice. I’m not sold on that. I’d want to respond differently. But how?

First, forcing morality is strange way to put it. People don’t literally force it like force-feeding medicine. So I’d ask what they mean. In return, I would probably get a few examples of government-forced behavioral conformity. Eventually the other person would concede that they have no problem with legislating against things like murder and theft even though such things are also present in various moral systems. They’re just against forcing conformity to things that are only features of (arbitrary) moral systems. For example, they would object to the Amish getting in power and imposing their voluntary abstinence from electricity, which seems quite reasonable.

So, I’d want to restate the claim in clearer language and get confirmation that the clearer formulation truly IS what they meant. (No Cathy Newman maneuvers here.) Maybe it would be something like this:

Conformity to moral ideas that are beyond the basic honoring of natural rights should not be compelled under threat of force, especially by the government.

Once we get a clear picture of the idea, there are options. For one, we could just drop the matter. After all, there’s a time to every purpose. This topic might just be getting in the way of more important ones. Alternatively, we could agree with them. It is not obvious that government should be big enough to enforce such things, or that doing so would be within its just purview (if it has one).

The author I read today went a different way. He thinks the opposition to forced moral behavior is self-defeating, that it fails in the same manner as when someone says, “I never use words.” But, I don't see how. There’s no force involved in merely saying morality shouldn’t be forced. Furthermore, people seem to have a natural right to go peaceably about their business, and if that’s correct, then a moral against violating that right would in the same category as the other morals that can be enforced (Thou shalt not murder, Thou shalt not steal, etc.). So where is the contradiction?

That’s where I am with it, anyway. I welcome your feedback, and if you like my stuff, please subscribe below.

Penjammin grew up in a labyrinthine cavern. Later he ran with the wolves and lived every moment marinated in the sweet scent of his game, until pirates landed and… See About for full story, and get his eletter at penjams.com/subscribe.