So "The Hurt Locker", the war thriller praised for its non-preachy style and intense action sequences, has won Best Picture at the 82nd Academy Awards. Its director, Kathryn Bigelow, also takes the honors of Best Director.
Despite the fact that the film won film of the year in almost every film review board and major film festivals (BAFTA, Director's Guild of America, Chicago Film Critics Association, LA Film Critics Association, just to name a few), I sensed that there was still an air of inevitability that "Avatar" would take the Best Picture honors, being the winner at the Golden Globes.
So I breathed a huge sigh of relief, and then scream in exuberance, when Tom Hanks, in perhaps the fastest coming-on-stage-and-reading-out-the-winner routine ever, announces that "The Hurt Locker" has won.
Having only caught the last 45 minutes of the show, beginning at the point of the long interpretive dance to the songs nominated for best original score, I have to say i didn't miss much in terms of (however rare we find it) 'Oscar Charm'. One of the best speech was given by the winner of Original Score, Michael Giacchino ("Up").
It seems like the funniest moment of the show came again in the form of Ben Stiller, dressing in full Navi gear.
As for the Best Picture... I have not seen "Precious", "Up in the Air", "A Serious Man", "The Blind Side", or "An Education." And while "Up" and "Inglorious Bastards" are brilliant films and certain deserve to be on the list, I doubted that they were serious contenders to win. A real sleeper for me was "District 9", its message more subtle than "Avatar", its special effects quietly compliments a strong plot, and very emotionally engaging performances.
But I suspect every one of the nominated films are better than "Avatar".
Not that I dislike "Avatar"; I think it's a brilliantly made film and an absolute delight to watch. But James Cameron's sci-fi epic is no award winner. It has a plot that is beyond formulaic. I mean, even people who watches less than 10 films a year would find the storyline familiar.
To those people who say that with a visual effects spectacle like this, that the plot does not matter, I say: No, it doesn't, for a decent film, that is. But if a film were to win an award for best movie of the year, I don't care what kind of special effects it offers, the storyline matters.
As for best actor, I am ashamed to say that for a film goer, I have not had the pleasure of marveling at the performances of Colin Firth, George Clooney, Morgan Freeman, or the winner Jeff Bridges. I shall have an Oscar-nominee night and watch "A Single Man", "Invictus", "Up in the Air", and "Crazy Heart", all in one day.
Congratulations to Sandra Bullock. I have not seen "The Blind Side", but prior to this film, Bullock has never impressed me as a brilliant actress who would be mentioned in the same award category as Meryl Streep and Helen Mirren. I have tons of respect for Carey Mulligan, though.
One category that often confuses me is Best Film Editing. How is an Academy member supposed to weight how one film is better than another in how a film is edited? Are there standards or guidelines, or is it completely subjective to the member?
All in all, a good Oscars for me, and for women too. My favorite film of last year won Best Picture and Best Director. Congratulations to Kathryn Bigelow, and "The Hurt Locker."
I hope people will be flocking to the store (or clicking Netflix, or whatever way) to rent / buy this film.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Friday, February 26, 2010
Shutter Island, part 2
After reading some reviews by the topic critics, I tend agree with those who liked the film whilst not loving it. Michael Phillips was especially harsh on the film, saying it is over dramatic and over the top.
I think I can relate to that. While the film was so well made and the direction (and I can't stress this enough) so well executed, I felt like something was missing. In the last post I mentioned that I felt it was Scorsese's best work. I agree with Phillips somewhat that the film was a bit over the top given the script and novel it was based on. The climax scenes were intense, the twists were revelatory, but for some reason, none of it was particularly mind-blowing in a lasting-impression kind of way.
In addition, I thought that one particular action involving one of the plot twists was a bit of a stretch. But that is not saying a lot, for a movie that has so many twists and turns.
Note that my criticism on the not-perfect film making (or perhaps novel adaptation) takes nothing away from my praise for the acting up and down the cast.
I think I can relate to that. While the film was so well made and the direction (and I can't stress this enough) so well executed, I felt like something was missing. In the last post I mentioned that I felt it was Scorsese's best work. I agree with Phillips somewhat that the film was a bit over the top given the script and novel it was based on. The climax scenes were intense, the twists were revelatory, but for some reason, none of it was particularly mind-blowing in a lasting-impression kind of way.
In addition, I thought that one particular action involving one of the plot twists was a bit of a stretch. But that is not saying a lot, for a movie that has so many twists and turns.
Note that my criticism on the not-perfect film making (or perhaps novel adaptation) takes nothing away from my praise for the acting up and down the cast.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Shutter Island: Not vintage Scorsese, but brilliant.
I went to see "Shutter Island" with a friend who has read the book that the film was based on. She had to read the book four times to completely understand the story and the twists and turns. But for the film version, Martin Scorsese does not have the luxury of having his audiences watch the film four times to understand the story, and so he played out the script in a crystal-clear manner, and the audience was probably satisfied by the end of the film.
The acting was terrific throughout the cast. Leonardo DiCaprio was perfect cast as the lead and he really dove into this role. Without giving anything away, I'll just say this role is somewhat similar to his role in "The Departed", only perhaps even edgier.
I was also impressed by the supporting cast, perhaps even more so than by Leo's performance. Ben Kingsley and Max von Sydow make effective cunning figures, sending chills down our spines with their lines. Mark Ruffalo gives a quietly great performance as Leo's partner in the film.
The one thing I had a slight issue with was the casting of Jackie Earle Haley; the three films he's most famous for, he's played: a pedophile ("Little Children"), a conspiracy-theorist Superhero (Rorschach in "Watchmen"), and now as an insane prisoner in "Shutter Island". Haley seemed perfect for the role, but perhaps the makers could have taken a risk and cast someone we don't already associate with insanity.
What can be said about the film making itself? My first impression was that it was done very well, in a by-the-book kind of way. The editing is well paced so that we can see what is going on (and the acting too), but it's not anything we haven't seen before.
Finally, though, the film, as well as the book, (I assume) is a study into the idea of insanity. At one point late in the movie, there is a brief discussion on the issue of institutionalized insanity. The story of the movie takes place in the mid 1950s. About a decade after that, French post-structuralist philosopher Michel Foucault write a series of literature (the Order of Things, Discipline & Punish, a History of Madness) discussing insanity. What is it? how is it defined? The nature of insanity itself is a controversial category, and many of us take for granted the loose definitions provided by the definers.
"Shutter Island" is a terrific film, but it certainly felt like Scorsese was not going for the best film of his career. That's quite okay; I'll take decent Scorsese over Michael Bay any day.
The acting was terrific throughout the cast. Leonardo DiCaprio was perfect cast as the lead and he really dove into this role. Without giving anything away, I'll just say this role is somewhat similar to his role in "The Departed", only perhaps even edgier.
I was also impressed by the supporting cast, perhaps even more so than by Leo's performance. Ben Kingsley and Max von Sydow make effective cunning figures, sending chills down our spines with their lines. Mark Ruffalo gives a quietly great performance as Leo's partner in the film.
The one thing I had a slight issue with was the casting of Jackie Earle Haley; the three films he's most famous for, he's played: a pedophile ("Little Children"), a conspiracy-theorist Superhero (Rorschach in "Watchmen"), and now as an insane prisoner in "Shutter Island". Haley seemed perfect for the role, but perhaps the makers could have taken a risk and cast someone we don't already associate with insanity.
What can be said about the film making itself? My first impression was that it was done very well, in a by-the-book kind of way. The editing is well paced so that we can see what is going on (and the acting too), but it's not anything we haven't seen before.
Finally, though, the film, as well as the book, (I assume) is a study into the idea of insanity. At one point late in the movie, there is a brief discussion on the issue of institutionalized insanity. The story of the movie takes place in the mid 1950s. About a decade after that, French post-structuralist philosopher Michel Foucault write a series of literature (the Order of Things, Discipline & Punish, a History of Madness) discussing insanity. What is it? how is it defined? The nature of insanity itself is a controversial category, and many of us take for granted the loose definitions provided by the definers.
"Shutter Island" is a terrific film, but it certainly felt like Scorsese was not going for the best film of his career. That's quite okay; I'll take decent Scorsese over Michael Bay any day.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Phone Review: LG Viewty Smart
I am not a tech guy. I am not particularly tech-savvy and I don't consider myself a geek. But I do know an intuitive device when I come across one, and the LG Viewty Smart is only mediocre when it comes to the overall quality of a $400 phone.
In the interest of not appearing like an ignorant dumbass, I will not go through the tech specs, or all the features of the phone. Instead, I will focus on what I have personally experienced with the device during its four months of usage so far.
Let us start with a good quality: the camera is great. 8 megapixels with a fairly strong zoom meant the pictures come out quite nice even when spread to full screen on a computer. The various 'shot modes' are cool, but for most recreational point-and-shoot cell phone camera users, the Intelligent Shot mode (IS), 'Auto', and Night Mode, are good enough. The video recording quality is excellent, too.
The camera is great. It is what this line of LG phones are geared for - taking good pictures - and to this end, LG does a good job.
But that's about as far as it goes.
The Viewty Smart is a full touchscreen phone, with one homescreen button, an on/off switch on top and volume buttons on the sides. What a full touchscreen phone entails is that the touchscreen needs to be intuitive, fast, and precise. The LG touchscreen is not any of these things. When compared to real smart phones like the HTC Hero or iphone 3GS, the LG touchscreen feels slow, lagging, and amateur.
A personal problem I've had is sometimes I would receive calls, but the screen would not light up to let me press 'receive'! That means I'm left staring at the screen, while the phone rings, and I can't pick up. I suspect it might have something to do with the room being very warm and the screen not responding because of that, but that probably sounds ridiculous.
The horizontal text messaging QWERTY keyboard, while seems like a smaller version of the iphone QWERTY keyboard, is quite difficult to type with; owners will need to develop very agile and delicate typing fingers to be able to text fast.
This is the issue: in this day in age, we don't just want to be able to text, or text accurately, we want to text fast. And the LG Interface doesn't deliver.
The Viewty Smart cannot go 3G (not mine, anyway), which means it is not a smart phone. The web-surfing abilities of this phone is weak, as well. The browser lacks like crazy, and the not-so-big screen just discourages any user to go onto the internet for any extended period.
Finally, it had not occurred to me that purchasing an expensive phone like this one would mean problems like it being incompatible with an Apple computer. This is beyond disappointing. Luckily I have installed Windows Vista via Boot Camp, otherwise I would've had to use another computer to sync my phone with and upload pictures and music and stuff. But this meant that every time I want to do this, I have to flip over to windows, a very annoying and tedious thing to do.
That's about it, the LG Viewty Smart, a phone that is light in weight, looks slick, great for taking pictures and (just about) nothing more. While I do not regret picking this phone over the iPhone, LG would probably not be on my top 3 in choice for my next purchase.
In the interest of not appearing like an ignorant dumbass, I will not go through the tech specs, or all the features of the phone. Instead, I will focus on what I have personally experienced with the device during its four months of usage so far.
Let us start with a good quality: the camera is great. 8 megapixels with a fairly strong zoom meant the pictures come out quite nice even when spread to full screen on a computer. The various 'shot modes' are cool, but for most recreational point-and-shoot cell phone camera users, the Intelligent Shot mode (IS), 'Auto', and Night Mode, are good enough. The video recording quality is excellent, too.
The camera is great. It is what this line of LG phones are geared for - taking good pictures - and to this end, LG does a good job.
But that's about as far as it goes.
The Viewty Smart is a full touchscreen phone, with one homescreen button, an on/off switch on top and volume buttons on the sides. What a full touchscreen phone entails is that the touchscreen needs to be intuitive, fast, and precise. The LG touchscreen is not any of these things. When compared to real smart phones like the HTC Hero or iphone 3GS, the LG touchscreen feels slow, lagging, and amateur.
A personal problem I've had is sometimes I would receive calls, but the screen would not light up to let me press 'receive'! That means I'm left staring at the screen, while the phone rings, and I can't pick up. I suspect it might have something to do with the room being very warm and the screen not responding because of that, but that probably sounds ridiculous.
The horizontal text messaging QWERTY keyboard, while seems like a smaller version of the iphone QWERTY keyboard, is quite difficult to type with; owners will need to develop very agile and delicate typing fingers to be able to text fast.
This is the issue: in this day in age, we don't just want to be able to text, or text accurately, we want to text fast. And the LG Interface doesn't deliver.
The Viewty Smart cannot go 3G (not mine, anyway), which means it is not a smart phone. The web-surfing abilities of this phone is weak, as well. The browser lacks like crazy, and the not-so-big screen just discourages any user to go onto the internet for any extended period.
Finally, it had not occurred to me that purchasing an expensive phone like this one would mean problems like it being incompatible with an Apple computer. This is beyond disappointing. Luckily I have installed Windows Vista via Boot Camp, otherwise I would've had to use another computer to sync my phone with and upload pictures and music and stuff. But this meant that every time I want to do this, I have to flip over to windows, a very annoying and tedious thing to do.
That's about it, the LG Viewty Smart, a phone that is light in weight, looks slick, great for taking pictures and (just about) nothing more. While I do not regret picking this phone over the iPhone, LG would probably not be on my top 3 in choice for my next purchase.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Can a Youtube Campaign fail?
I was pleasantly surprised when I saw that the White House established its own Youtube channel and uploads videos of all sorts almost everyday. From message-driven videos such as President Obama’s speech to the Muslim world, to issue-related videos such as UN Conferences or Health Care meetings, to videos that show shed light on what it’s like living in the White House, the channel is full of useful information for anyone who wishes to know more about anything President-related.
Which makes it all the more puzzling to me when I look at the mostly disappointing low view counts for this videos.
Videos on the White House channel rarely break the 10,000 views mark, a number that should be more than reachable considering its source.
Let me reemphasize: Neither Presidents Clinton nor W. even used email, so it is just shocking to me to find that so few people are accessing this White House channel to learn / gather information / come up with constructive criticism.
For example, a few weeks ago, a video was set up for Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to answer questions asked by ordinary Americans. That video currently stands at about 3000 views. The health care debate is the issue of America right now; it is where the White House has chosen to make its first major impact since taking office. You’d think tens of thousands of eager learners would watch this video and others to learn what the White House has to say about their reforms.
Another, even more compelling example, is the videos showing what the White House has done so far with the stimulus money in terms of creating jobs and funding small businesses. One video shows Obama present at a smart grid site in Arcadia, Florida, where a field of solar panels rested behind him as he talked about creating jobs relating to renewable energy. There is also one video of Obama speaking about new small business lending initiatives. Neither of these videos is remotely close to 10,000 views. How do you complain about something if you don’t at least see what they’ve done?
I’d like to think of it this way: there are upwards of say, two dozen, elite universities in America, and over a hundred quality ones. There are also thousands upon thousands of high schools, and only as few as a few thousand of these students watch the White House channel. That number lowers even more if you take out the non-student youtubers. Now, even if university political science students should be skeptical about the factual contents of these videos, or God forbid, be scare that they might somehow be propaganda, they should nonetheless watch them to know what the White House has to say, if anything then, to analyze and criticize it.
I mean, how is it possible that these videos aren’t being watched by a bigger demographic? Are little ol’ me and a few thousand others the only ones interested in what the Obama administration’s up to? Do the students are Harvard, Stanford, or Columbia, not know the channel exists, or do they not think it’s useful?
It just goes to show how uncivilized the political climate is in the United States. The number of people who believe that the President is wrong no matter what is staggering. I bet there are those who there who would link that nutjob who fired a machine gun at American solders at Fort Hood with Obama.
Anyone who wants to form an opinion on something should listen to what both sides has to offer.
Which makes it all the more puzzling to me when I look at the mostly disappointing low view counts for this videos.
Videos on the White House channel rarely break the 10,000 views mark, a number that should be more than reachable considering its source.
Let me reemphasize: Neither Presidents Clinton nor W. even used email, so it is just shocking to me to find that so few people are accessing this White House channel to learn / gather information / come up with constructive criticism.
For example, a few weeks ago, a video was set up for Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to answer questions asked by ordinary Americans. That video currently stands at about 3000 views. The health care debate is the issue of America right now; it is where the White House has chosen to make its first major impact since taking office. You’d think tens of thousands of eager learners would watch this video and others to learn what the White House has to say about their reforms.
Another, even more compelling example, is the videos showing what the White House has done so far with the stimulus money in terms of creating jobs and funding small businesses. One video shows Obama present at a smart grid site in Arcadia, Florida, where a field of solar panels rested behind him as he talked about creating jobs relating to renewable energy. There is also one video of Obama speaking about new small business lending initiatives. Neither of these videos is remotely close to 10,000 views. How do you complain about something if you don’t at least see what they’ve done?
I’d like to think of it this way: there are upwards of say, two dozen, elite universities in America, and over a hundred quality ones. There are also thousands upon thousands of high schools, and only as few as a few thousand of these students watch the White House channel. That number lowers even more if you take out the non-student youtubers. Now, even if university political science students should be skeptical about the factual contents of these videos, or God forbid, be scare that they might somehow be propaganda, they should nonetheless watch them to know what the White House has to say, if anything then, to analyze and criticize it.
I mean, how is it possible that these videos aren’t being watched by a bigger demographic? Are little ol’ me and a few thousand others the only ones interested in what the Obama administration’s up to? Do the students are Harvard, Stanford, or Columbia, not know the channel exists, or do they not think it’s useful?
It just goes to show how uncivilized the political climate is in the United States. The number of people who believe that the President is wrong no matter what is staggering. I bet there are those who there who would link that nutjob who fired a machine gun at American solders at Fort Hood with Obama.
Anyone who wants to form an opinion on something should listen to what both sides has to offer.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Sing, Damn It!
No, really. I want you to start singing.
Right off the bat, I am going to call out all the Arts students: There are roughly 45 singers in the SFU choir this semester, the majority of whom are business, science, and math (yes, MATH!) students. Less than a handful of which study in any one of political science, history, criminology, sociology, psychology, communications, etc. I am one of them.
What’s going on? Aren’t Arts students supposed to be the ‘open’ ones? Aren’t we the ones who love to express our opinions and show our emotions? Is my class of Arts students all ‘lit-geeks’ who likes to hide behind their computers and silently yell at people?
Or does it have something to do with the music that we listen to? Are we so dominated by hip-hop, R & B, metal, and emo music that we cease to realize what actual good singing sounds like (for the few Michael Crawford and Pavarotti fans out there, cheers!)?
It has occurred to me that there is a detachment between the good singing we hear on the radio and what ‘ordinary’ people can do. Artists like Beyonce and Michael Buble didn’t become good singers without vigorous training. I happen to believe that anyone can sing, and that there is really no such thing as being ‘tone-deaf’. It is perhaps a ‘nature vs. nurture’ argument, but yes, I think we can all sing.
And plus, you don’t even have to be that good at singing to indulge in it. Bono is not a very good singer at all. But the emotions he puts into every song more than makes up for his sub-par singing skills.
So where is this ‘singing recession’ coming from? Does the bad economy have anything to do with people not opening their mouths and belt a few tunes? Are people in general just so gloomy nowadays that they feel that singing is a waste of time / energy?
Think of it this way: Singing is perhaps the cheapest way to momentarily escape whatever crap of the day you have to deal with. Just pour a glass of water, shut the door to your room (barricade it you want), put in a CD (if you’re old school), or click on whatever sing-able song you have in your downloaded library, and you’re ready to go.
It seems that at some point over the past few decades, singing has become sexualized. Very few people today would associate singing with masculinity. On the other hand, when a guy on TV belts out a beautiful Broadway melody, one might be inclined to think he’s ‘gay’ (yes, I know that Adam Lambert is actually gay, but he’s not the only person I’m referring to). How did we reach a point where people are likening homo/metro sexuality with good singing?
I’d also attribute this singing recession to the fear of embarrassment. It’s become apparent that now more than ever before people are caring more about what others think when they do anything, and the fear of ‘screwing up’ is keeping them from doing the things they want. Many students despise presentations because they are scared of public speaking. But singing is different; when you sing, you can adopt a completely different persona and become an entirely different person.
I guess one can say this is way the alcohol comes in. I’m sure many students have their unique stories of drunk karaoke. You don’t need the alcohol to let go of your shyness! Confidence gaining is a baby-step process, but I believe it is also achievable by everyone.
What happened to the days of Sinatra and Nat King Cole, where these gentlemen-like performers mouth out crooner tunes to serenade the audience? Is that not considered charming, anymore? And has people forgotten about Freddie Mercury, who possessed arguably the greatest rock voice of all time?
With that, I am going to ask everyone (especially you guys, Arts students) to start singing. There are many mediums at school for people to participate. There is the SFU choir, a singing group established in 1992 by a few undergrads and has been going strong since. There is a There is also the Vocal Jazz, which is a student run group. The choir does not require any previous singing experience and provides a relaxing environment to sing and have fun. To the best of my knowledge, the same could be said of the vocal jazz. There are also faculty-specific singing groups, such as Chemistry’s Chemsemble.
Most of these groups meet once a week for an hour or two. Don’t tell me you do not have the time indulge in brief getaway from all the painful things you have to deal with.
What is wrong with singing, anyway? Nothing. It’s fun, distressing. And if you’re good at it, people will adore you.
So, come out from behind your desks, arts students. I look forward to seeing more of you in the Spring!
Right off the bat, I am going to call out all the Arts students: There are roughly 45 singers in the SFU choir this semester, the majority of whom are business, science, and math (yes, MATH!) students. Less than a handful of which study in any one of political science, history, criminology, sociology, psychology, communications, etc. I am one of them.
What’s going on? Aren’t Arts students supposed to be the ‘open’ ones? Aren’t we the ones who love to express our opinions and show our emotions? Is my class of Arts students all ‘lit-geeks’ who likes to hide behind their computers and silently yell at people?
Or does it have something to do with the music that we listen to? Are we so dominated by hip-hop, R & B, metal, and emo music that we cease to realize what actual good singing sounds like (for the few Michael Crawford and Pavarotti fans out there, cheers!)?
It has occurred to me that there is a detachment between the good singing we hear on the radio and what ‘ordinary’ people can do. Artists like Beyonce and Michael Buble didn’t become good singers without vigorous training. I happen to believe that anyone can sing, and that there is really no such thing as being ‘tone-deaf’. It is perhaps a ‘nature vs. nurture’ argument, but yes, I think we can all sing.
And plus, you don’t even have to be that good at singing to indulge in it. Bono is not a very good singer at all. But the emotions he puts into every song more than makes up for his sub-par singing skills.
So where is this ‘singing recession’ coming from? Does the bad economy have anything to do with people not opening their mouths and belt a few tunes? Are people in general just so gloomy nowadays that they feel that singing is a waste of time / energy?
Think of it this way: Singing is perhaps the cheapest way to momentarily escape whatever crap of the day you have to deal with. Just pour a glass of water, shut the door to your room (barricade it you want), put in a CD (if you’re old school), or click on whatever sing-able song you have in your downloaded library, and you’re ready to go.
It seems that at some point over the past few decades, singing has become sexualized. Very few people today would associate singing with masculinity. On the other hand, when a guy on TV belts out a beautiful Broadway melody, one might be inclined to think he’s ‘gay’ (yes, I know that Adam Lambert is actually gay, but he’s not the only person I’m referring to). How did we reach a point where people are likening homo/metro sexuality with good singing?
I’d also attribute this singing recession to the fear of embarrassment. It’s become apparent that now more than ever before people are caring more about what others think when they do anything, and the fear of ‘screwing up’ is keeping them from doing the things they want. Many students despise presentations because they are scared of public speaking. But singing is different; when you sing, you can adopt a completely different persona and become an entirely different person.
I guess one can say this is way the alcohol comes in. I’m sure many students have their unique stories of drunk karaoke. You don’t need the alcohol to let go of your shyness! Confidence gaining is a baby-step process, but I believe it is also achievable by everyone.
What happened to the days of Sinatra and Nat King Cole, where these gentlemen-like performers mouth out crooner tunes to serenade the audience? Is that not considered charming, anymore? And has people forgotten about Freddie Mercury, who possessed arguably the greatest rock voice of all time?
With that, I am going to ask everyone (especially you guys, Arts students) to start singing. There are many mediums at school for people to participate. There is the SFU choir, a singing group established in 1992 by a few undergrads and has been going strong since. There is a There is also the Vocal Jazz, which is a student run group. The choir does not require any previous singing experience and provides a relaxing environment to sing and have fun. To the best of my knowledge, the same could be said of the vocal jazz. There are also faculty-specific singing groups, such as Chemistry’s Chemsemble.
Most of these groups meet once a week for an hour or two. Don’t tell me you do not have the time indulge in brief getaway from all the painful things you have to deal with.
What is wrong with singing, anyway? Nothing. It’s fun, distressing. And if you’re good at it, people will adore you.
So, come out from behind your desks, arts students. I look forward to seeing more of you in the Spring!
Sunday, October 4, 2009
God and Pets
Here is the observation that prompted this essay:
Earlier in the day, I saw a German Sheppard sticking his head out of his owner’s ride, enjoying the always-decent Vancouver breeze. This reinvigorated my sentiment about pets and their qualities of life.
The thought is essentially this: Domesticated pets that are born in Hong Kong, or other regions and cities where the temperatures and humidities are high, the populations dense, and the air polluted, live in much more dismal conditions than those that are born in, say, North America, where (for the most part) there is less pollution, but more importantly, there is usually lots of space for pets.
Note that the scope of this essay is limited only to pets; this means that I will not be discussing issues regarding species extinctions and their causes.
In this regard, I would agree with Richard Dawkins in that it is very important
The religious usually divide into two categories: Creationists and non-Creationists. But it is safe to say that the vast majority of those who believe in the existence of a God also believe that he were the source of all.
Creationists branch off into two sub-categories:
1. The Deists, who believe that the entity we know as ‘God’ is indeed the creator of the universe, but more specifically, the intricacies of physics, chemistry, and biology that allowed the world, as we know it to come about. Deists believe that God has not intervened in the universe since its creation. And;
2. The Interventionists. These are the religious folks who believe that not only did God create the world, but that God has influences on what goes on in our daily lives. Some of them, for example, believe that natural disasters are a work of God to punish human beings for their sins.
My argument here does not concern the Deists; I do not wish to dispute or debunk how the world was created. The interventionists, however, could help me answer a few questions:
If an omnipotent God is supposed to be omniscient, omnipresent, and omni-benevolent, then that means that God used his power to make it so that some pets are born under rough conditions fully knowing that he was doing so. And, if one were to explain the ‘all-nice’ part, then one could say that God put pets through rough times because he wants to ‘test’ their faith
Anybody see the problem here? As far as we know, human beings are the only species on earth that are capable of complex thoughts such as faith and the concept of God. Therefore, it is no surprise that so many people are led to believe that when they hit a rough patch, it is because God was testing their faiths. On the other hand, it hardly seems to make sense that we can apply the same logic to animals such as dogs or cats, since they are incapable of thinking that their faiths were being tested. Since this logic does not apply, it would seem to conclude that God picked animals at random and decided that some ought of live miserable lives while others get to have it easy, and he does not have a reason for it.
Ultimately, what this means is that one cannot justify God’s actions of putting some pets through tough times while not so for others, because the pets cannot comprehend the reasons. Because of this lack of rationality, God is not being fair, and therefore not omnibenevolent.
Keep in mind that by ‘God’, I am principally referring to the Christian God, and notions such as karma or reincarnation do not apply. This means that the actions of the pets’ ancestors would not have factored in to God’s decision in sentencing some animals to live wretched lives.
This little observation was just one of tens of thousands of attempts to refute the logic of God. But it more specifically tackles the issue of questioning God and his supposed fairness. There is no better way to think about whether if one should believe in God than to ask questions, literally, about everything. ‘Why do innocent civilians in the Third World live in such horrendous conditions?’ ‘Why do naturally-occurring forest fires destroy God’s own creations, in this case, countless acres’ worth of trees?’ Hopefully logic would lead some people to come up with answers other than God.
But then again, has there ever been a time when logic is compatible with religion?
Earlier in the day, I saw a German Sheppard sticking his head out of his owner’s ride, enjoying the always-decent Vancouver breeze. This reinvigorated my sentiment about pets and their qualities of life.
The thought is essentially this: Domesticated pets that are born in Hong Kong, or other regions and cities where the temperatures and humidities are high, the populations dense, and the air polluted, live in much more dismal conditions than those that are born in, say, North America, where (for the most part) there is less pollution, but more importantly, there is usually lots of space for pets.
Note that the scope of this essay is limited only to pets; this means that I will not be discussing issues regarding species extinctions and their causes.
In this regard, I would agree with Richard Dawkins in that it is very important
The religious usually divide into two categories: Creationists and non-Creationists. But it is safe to say that the vast majority of those who believe in the existence of a God also believe that he were the source of all.
Creationists branch off into two sub-categories:
1. The Deists, who believe that the entity we know as ‘God’ is indeed the creator of the universe, but more specifically, the intricacies of physics, chemistry, and biology that allowed the world, as we know it to come about. Deists believe that God has not intervened in the universe since its creation. And;
2. The Interventionists. These are the religious folks who believe that not only did God create the world, but that God has influences on what goes on in our daily lives. Some of them, for example, believe that natural disasters are a work of God to punish human beings for their sins.
My argument here does not concern the Deists; I do not wish to dispute or debunk how the world was created. The interventionists, however, could help me answer a few questions:
If an omnipotent God is supposed to be omniscient, omnipresent, and omni-benevolent, then that means that God used his power to make it so that some pets are born under rough conditions fully knowing that he was doing so. And, if one were to explain the ‘all-nice’ part, then one could say that God put pets through rough times because he wants to ‘test’ their faith
Anybody see the problem here? As far as we know, human beings are the only species on earth that are capable of complex thoughts such as faith and the concept of God. Therefore, it is no surprise that so many people are led to believe that when they hit a rough patch, it is because God was testing their faiths. On the other hand, it hardly seems to make sense that we can apply the same logic to animals such as dogs or cats, since they are incapable of thinking that their faiths were being tested. Since this logic does not apply, it would seem to conclude that God picked animals at random and decided that some ought of live miserable lives while others get to have it easy, and he does not have a reason for it.
Ultimately, what this means is that one cannot justify God’s actions of putting some pets through tough times while not so for others, because the pets cannot comprehend the reasons. Because of this lack of rationality, God is not being fair, and therefore not omnibenevolent.
Keep in mind that by ‘God’, I am principally referring to the Christian God, and notions such as karma or reincarnation do not apply. This means that the actions of the pets’ ancestors would not have factored in to God’s decision in sentencing some animals to live wretched lives.
This little observation was just one of tens of thousands of attempts to refute the logic of God. But it more specifically tackles the issue of questioning God and his supposed fairness. There is no better way to think about whether if one should believe in God than to ask questions, literally, about everything. ‘Why do innocent civilians in the Third World live in such horrendous conditions?’ ‘Why do naturally-occurring forest fires destroy God’s own creations, in this case, countless acres’ worth of trees?’ Hopefully logic would lead some people to come up with answers other than God.
But then again, has there ever been a time when logic is compatible with religion?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
