Tuesday, July 17, 2007
I'm back from Telluride after flying back yesterday afternoon. Great trip but for that wretched cold I caught towards the end. (I slept something like twelve hours for each of my last two days on vacation as a result. Blecch!)
I've turned the corner, which means that I feel much better, but sound much worse. If I need more rest to recuperate over the next few days, I'm taking it! In other words, I may take my time getting completely back on the blogging saddle.
Larger than Art
They say that "Life imitates art."
And then they also sometimes use the phrase, "larger than life".
Whoever "they" are will get a big kick out of Myrhaf's recent "housecleaning", especially if they remember that South Park parody of World of Warcraft and draw some parallels to blogging as they look at his sidebar!
Or maybe it's just me.
(Or should that be, "Maybe I am they"?)
[Update: And, as if that wasn't cryptic enough to begin with, Myrhaf took down the photo I blogged about. Party pooper.]
I enjoyed Andrew Dalton's recent fisking of a particularly inane piece of Green Trash (Hmmm. I like that phrase.) generated by Mark Prescott and dumped onto the web by the Beeb.
Below, Dalton's comments are in bold.
In terms of impressive achievements, it is hard to top the Moon landings.That's a good one to file away for the next time someone tries to pretend that the desirability and feasibility of a great technological achievement both apply to his own pet evil political project.
Although wildly imaginative and ambitious, the objective of getting to the Moon and back enabled everyone involved to focus on a single, highly visible goal.
Yes, and it was also a highly delimited and technical achievement. It is not a universal model that validates the feasibility of anyone's proposed collective "project." (I wonder where this editorial is going ...)
And there will be a "next time".
The Wikiospel Truth
This book review of Misquoting Jesus I found via Arts and Letters Daily was somewhat amusing for its cleverly pointing out the similarities between the "Word of God" and Wikipedia.
In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. So many hands have altered and edited the now lost originals that we will never know for sure what those originals said. I find it amusing that the Christian Right in America spends its energy attacking evolution, arguing that teaching evolution is teaching atheism. For Ehrman, learning about the Bible is what caused his belief to change. He still believes in God, but no longer believes the Bible is an inerrant source of the Word. It would be interesting to know how many people became less religiously devout after learning science versus learning about Bible and church history. Instead of convincing believers not to read Dawkins and Darwin, the biblical literalists might better spend their energy keeping folks away from Ehrman (in fact, backlash books attacking Ehrman --- often personally --- and defending Biblical infallibility are already appearing). Ehrman isn't an atheist assaulting belief; he is just a scholarly believer saying he feels the evidence is clear that the gospels were written by men with personal agendas, and both accidentally and intentionally altered over the centuries by other men with agendas of their own. ...Who knew that Conservapedia was redundant from the get-go?
Today: (1) Added section on "Wikiospel". (2) Fixed a typo. (3) Updated Myrhaf section.