Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Attica

  1. See my apology in the short parking section. I shouldn't have decided to walk away from this community. People should be able to follow any interests and political pursuits they chose (within reason of course) without fear of rejection.
  2. I'm leaving Artsandfaith and won't be taking part in this discussion any longer. Enjoy the film.
  3. Yeah, they did a lot of neat tricks with him. The part of him jumping out the window the way it did was fantastic. Goofy, funny, yet also entirely creepy. Yeah there was so much going on there.
  4. Right. They also manage to make the character frightening, but then at times kind of like able, quirky, and fun. His singing in the apartment comes to mind, he was having a great time. My favourite scene with him was the scene where he got slapped. Such fine acting. I had to rewind it several times. Welcome. Remember, this was made under communism. I'm surprised that it had what it did. I think it could have been integrated further in the sense that connecting the dots of the connection between those variety of things might be a leap for some. Not sure if that would have made a film which can be too obvious in places, too much more obvious. Yeah, that really showed different sensibilities. The same with their choices of the music that went along with the humour. That field and song scene was one of the "weird" parts I had mentioned. But really, what a neat scene, he was so weird and goofy, but at the same time and partially because how this was handled, the character came across as so unnerving.
  5. IMO Suicide Squad wasn't too "light", so far as that goes. My biggest complaint is that the middle section started to drone on with basically the same unchanging story, and then started to become garbled when it jump from scene to scene with no apparent rhyme or reason. I found myself wondering if I had phased out and missed some transitional shots, but then I realize that I hadn't, it just kind of jumped there. That's almost certainly in part to do with the reshoots. But it's also almost certainly to do with a lack of editorial control in piecing them together. Or maybe they just didn't realize that they would need to reshoot any needed transitional shots. It almost certainly comes from straying from the original script's roadmap. Surely this film will be able to avoid some of these problems.
  6. I'm pretty sure it does. Although I think it's fairly clear that there are other aspects to the character which are a bit hazy to us. Oh, yes. It is great. The ideas surrounding it are fantastic. I love that this part of the film gives such an interwoven commentary on science, faith, the arts, communism, culture, history. etc. So much of which is depicted in those images. When I think about it, it's pretty much all there. There also might be little bit of a 1950's type sci-fi/horror flick thrown into the mix. There's a lot to dig. You might not have made it into the more surreal (and weird) stuff yet. There's some great cinematography coming up.
  7. Our interaction with "the world" really is a tricky thing. I happen to think that some things in the world and secular culture can be of benefit and can speak to us, and even correct us, but other things.... not so much. I've always been a big advocate of engaging culture with intentional discernment, but it seems that some people have more of an ability to be discerning than others. I can also see why, at least a times, some would want to quit worrying about discerning things all of the time, to just give it a rest. To be honest, last night when I read through the thread I was a little baffled with the idea of being driven out of the church because of the cultural wars. This just hasn't been my experience. I mean I've been plenty annoyed by the lack of understanding often found in regards to the arts, but I think that is a slightly different thing (although this lack of understanding could have roots in the cultural wars). Then upon further reflection I came to thinking that what is going on is probably coming from a difference between the American church and the Canadian church, where the "cultural wars" don't seem to be as prominent or intense. Over the years I just haven't heard as much of a squabble about these things. Maybe Peter or other Canadians here are more aware of something that I may have missed????
  8. Seems to me that he was practical effects with some CGI tweeking.
  9. Okay, I can live with that. Yes, I completely agree that with at least certain people outside of the pulpit it isn't productive. Some people are also too *far* to really even comprehend the argument I would be making. I had written that here with the understanding that many, or most, at Artsandfaith could be considered to be at least somewhere "within the pulpit". I still do think it's noteworthy. Some people are not interested in what Christians have to say and feel that it has little answers for the culture. In C.S. Lewis' time, people who were not Christians would be more likely to listen to a Christian voice. IMO. Yeah, to much of an emphasis on these with a neglect of probably more important aspects of the Christian life have not helped us. I agree on that. I still think that the dialogue is important. I run in some online groups (which include several philosophers) where this kind of thing is often being discussed (and it usually starts with someone slinging mud at the "stupid scientifically illiterate Theists"). I used to respond to the mudslinging and point a few things out to them, but in the last year or so I've been trying not to get involved, unless someone calls me into it. It's terribly frustrating and a guy can feel like he's rehashing the same old problems and issues, questions and answers, just with another person (or even worse sometimes with the same person who has conveniently forgotten what has been said before). Round and around it goes. So I can certainly understand why the majority of people in the church have grown tired of listening to them. But I still want to defend the Discovery Institute for what they are doing. If I find it all frustrating, I can only imaging how it must feel to them. They also get beaten up quite a bit by people who obviously don't really understand what they are saying. Yes most people are not interested in the more heavy type of philosophy that one would find in Plantinga or Moreland. I get that. Some of the people I interact with just wouldn't find books like those from C.S. Lewis as sufficient arguments for the faith. That's not to diss Lewis of course. The fact that he reached out to such a broad number was almost certainly because he had an accessibility that those others don't have. But it's always been that way, the general person has a limited interest in truly deep philosophical works. To be honest I find the ideas of philosophy interesting, but can get bored with the nit pickiness of it all. I mean sometimes it can get REALLY nit picky. FWIW. I found this to be an excellent recent philosophical work, looking at the various philosophical arguments for God, their strengths and weaknesses, and then pointing out an underlying truth that they all rely on. I think it shows that the debate can help us grow in theological reflection. I guess I've had the poor fortune to have fallen within that niche in the last couple of years. I would much rather be reading novels and watching film, and have been trying to move away from those debates, as touched on above. One of the reasons why I know a little bit about the Discovery Institute is because they are one of the main groups to come up in these kinds of debates, and they have stuff which *does* strongly challenge certain people, and which they *haven't* been able to properly respond to. Hence one of the reasons I thought they should be included as public intellectuals. In a strict sense, yes. But I can see his point.
  10. I found Pete's Dragon more touching and personal, but the new Jungle Book is a sweeping adventure with some pretty impressive animated characters.
  11. I think Plantinga would have definitely had more influence overall. He was an influence on many current Christian philosophers to follow that craft, and is held as one of the fathers of the recent resurgence of Christian philosophy. I would think that the others are on a current list simply because they have published widely regarded books of late.
  12. Well, first off, I've kind of shown that we can't limit the Discovery Institute to the ID movement. I was talking about the Discovery Institute in general and not just about the ID movement which is a subset of it, and there are also scientists speaking about fields outside of biology It is the most known aspect of the Discovery Institute, and probably the central aspect of it, but it is not the only aspect of it. So in regards to "public intellectuals" the Discovery Institute should not be bound to just biology. - So far as actual biologists. There's also Paul Chien. Here are some from their Biologic Institute. I had already mentioned Ann Gauger. - She received a BS in biology from MIT, and a PhD in developmental biology from the University of Washington, where she studied cell adhesion molecules involved in Drosophila embryogenesis. As a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard she cloned and characterized the Drosophila kinesin light chain. Her research has been published in Nature, Development, and the Journal of Biological Chemistry. Then there is Richard Sternberg - With expertise in evolutionary biology and bioinformatics, he studies the organization of genomic information and how it relates to organismal form. Holding PhDs in molecular evolution and in systems science, he has been a staff scientist at the National Center for Biotechnology Information and a Research Associate at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History, where he served as editor of theProceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. More information is available at his website: http://www.richardsternberg.org/. Jonathan Wells is a cell and developmental biologist with a PhD in Molecular and Cell Biology from UC Berkeley. Lisanne Winslow is a professor of biology at Northwestern College. Her research focuses on the cellular biology of sea urchin immune cells. She received her BS, MS, and PhD from Rutgers University. Mariclair Reeves is a research scientist at Biologic Institute. Her research uses molecular cloning and genetic mutation to test the evolutionary feasibility of recruiting enzymes to new functions. She holds a BS in Animal Science from the University of Delaware and a PhD in cell and molecular biology from the University of Hawaii Mānoa in Honolulu. - They are also connected to ID people from around the world, such as this group in Brazil. If you scroll through the list you'll find at least ten biologists (I didn't take the time to count out every one). Then they are connected to biologists such as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig   CurriculumVitae here. Then there are a variety of others who speak on their evolution news and views page from time to time. - And again, look through the list of people and their credentials over at the Third Way of Evolution Website. There are biologists there whom are in agreement with the ID people that Darwinism is a bust, even if they aren't in agreement (or quite in agreement) as to what the solution, or new way forward, is. Also, the ID movement isn't just built on biology, it also includes Information Theory etc, and there have been books published in these regards. They also have several people trained in Philosophy of Science, and are connected to Evolutionary Biologists/Paleontologists such as J.Y Chen who take issue with the Darwinian view of evolution (see here at the 4:20 mark ). Chen Jun-Yuan - (born 1939.11) is an evolutionary biologist at the University of Nanjing and a Paleontologist at Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology of Chinese Academy of Sciences. As a graduate of Northwest University, he was educated as a petroleum geologist (1956.09-1960.09), and then held appointment at Nanjing Inst. of Geology & Paleontology, Chinese Academy of Sciences since 1960. He also hold appointment of many oversea guest senior scholarships including at Univ. of Rochester, NY (1981.05-1982.10); at Royal Ontario Museum, Canada (1982.10-1993.05) ; at Univ. of Stockholm, Sweden (1988.08-1989.07); and at California Institute of California . He is best known for his work in Cambrian Cephalopods and Early Animals (especially Early Cambrian Chengjiang fossil fauna and Early Ediacaran Weng’an fauna). He currently has devoted a major part of his professional career to developing novel understanding in evolutionary origins of vertebrates and arthropods.
  13. But Peter. Phillip Johnson is far from the only person publishing through the Discovery Institute. Actually, I would think that, right now, there are others who are publishing more, have a more relevant education and background, and are on the leading cusp of the debates. Are you following what they are doing? They have sections of their group dealing with Economics, Technology, Human Exceptionalism. They've got guys like Michael Denton who are talking within their area of expertise, as are Myers and Behe etc, whom if you've ever watched one of their debates can hold their own (some would say and then some) against their peers. They've got David Berlinski, who I don't think you can deny is an intellectual. They have the Biological Institute, with people trained in the field. People like Anne Gauger who has a PhD in developmental biology. They have the Evolutionary Informatics Lab with William Dembski. Here's Dembski's education. Have a look. That tells me that he has some expertise. Also, how can a person have that degree of education, have written several books... and not be considered an intellectual (even if you don't agree with him)? The have fellows like William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland, both of who were recently considered two of the most influential modern philosophers. One of those philosophers, Thomas Nagel, has defended the Discovery Institute as being unfairly marginalized in his book Mind and Cosmos. They are connected with Guillermo Gonzalez, who has a PhD in Astronomy and has written in connection to this. Then they have Richard Weikart who is a professor of history, with a PhD in European history who has written in connection to this (and whom I believe is a Christian). The list goes on. If you don't agree with everything all of these guys are saying, that's fine, but it strikes me as kind of unfair to say that they aren't intellectuals in light of what is going on, and this, it would seem, largely based on Phillip Johnson's books that were written, what, 25 years ago. Books which I haven't read, but which near as I can tell current biology may be agreeing with, at least in the sense that Darwinism IS in trouble, and as I've linked to above, it isn't merely people from the Discovery Institute (or Young Earth Creationists) who are pointing it out. Again, see the Third Way of Evolution website. From the site - "This web site is dedicated to making the results of that research available and to offering a forum to expose novel scientific thinking about the evolutionary process. The DNA record does not support the assertion that small random mutations are the main source of new and useful variations." These include some top dogs in the field, like James A Shapiro who wrote this book. Or Denis Noble. These people may not be in agreement (or complete agreement?) with Intelligent Design, but they ARE in agreement that modern biology is showing strict Neo-Darwinism to be untenable. In these regards they are coming into alignment with what the Discovery Institute has been saying for decades, and there IS a conversation happening around this. I would also think that this is indication that maybe there isn't as good of a reason for people not listening to them as you may think (in regards to biology, not the various other things that they are publishing)... I mean if certain major players are at least somewhat in agreement with them. So, again, you can disagree with the people from the Discovery Institute, but I think it's quite unfair to say that they are not "public intellectuals". I mean, they are debating their contemporaries in the public sphere, and as I've indicated, seem to hold up fine in that domain. For example, the recent debate between Richard Weikart, Peter Singer and Susan Blackmore (Blackmore and Singer being two of the most prominent atheist philosophers right now).
  14. I'll be away this weekend, so I won't be able to check in. I think it's a film which, even if you don't enjoy all of it, you will find parts of it to enjoy. It's interesting in that at times it is quite subversive, but at other times it is more forthright than my tastes (for example - blind justice). As I've indicated, I think the officials knew some of its themes, but even then didn't realize the extent of it.
  15. For September I chose the Soviet film Repentance. A few reasons why I chose the film. First and foremost I had originally purchased this film because I had read somewhere that it had a great impact on it's society and was seen as a fine example of subversive art (I don't think the officials understood the magnitude of its mocking of them as well as some other things). The people understood what it was saying even if some of the officials did not. I think the film also does a fine job of dealing with some interwoven themes of science, religion, art, history/heritage, and family. It can be surreal, funny, tragic, goofy, and at times, just weird. It also boasts a great character, and I can't think of many characters who are as goofy, seemingly amiable, yet with and underlying air that is so chilling, and which at times boils to the surface. There are also a few moments where it has some haunting cinematography, as would be expected from a Soviet or Russian film. Yet this film has moments that are not like any other Soviet/Russian films that I've seen, with it's combination of comedy, political satire, thriller, drama, and arthouse film. I think its a fine example of how film can speak on several levels and have an influence on people's thinking and from there on society. Anyhow, hopefully that didn't give away to much. I'm interested in seeing some people's thoughts. Here's the film on Youtube Here's a couple of articles about the film. If anyhow finds some more information, then feel free to share it.
  16. So are we going with Repentance then? Is it a go to set up it's own thread?
  17. This might be worth digging into. "In this mettlesome, slyly funny takedown, Wolfe spotlights two key scientific rivalries, each pitting a scrappy outsider against the academy....Wolfe's pithy and stirring play-by-play coverage of compelling lives and demanding science transforms our perception of speech....As always, white-suited Wolfe will be all over the media...stirring things up and sending readers to the shelves."―Donna Seaman, Booklist"A fresh look at an old controversy, as a master provocateur suggests that human language renders the theory of evolution more like a fable than scientific fact....Wolfe throws a Molotov cocktail at conventional wisdom in a book that won't settle any argument but is sure to start some."―Kirkus Reviews"In lively, irreverent, and witty prose, Wolfe argues that speech, not evolution, sets humans apart from animals and is responsible for all of humankind's complex achievements....Wolfe's vibrant study manages to be clever, funny, serious, satirical, and instructive."―Publishers Weekly"Tom Wolfe aims his unparalleled wit at evolution, arguing that complex language is the singular superpower that allows humans to rule the planet."―Harper's Bazaar "This being Tom Wolfe, the ponderous debate over language and evolution takes on a kind of pop-art pizzazz....A curiously entertaining little book."―James Sullivan, Boston Globe
  18. The Discovery Institute isn't the only organization of intellectuals that is challenging strict Darwinism (not counting the various YEC groups), there's also scientists and philosophers with no direct connection to faith, such as the Third Way of Evolution. So, currently much of what the Discovery Institute is saying is not outside of intellectual discourse, even though it may be outside of mainstream acceptance. But really, isn't much of what Christians intellectuals are saying right now in general, outside of mainstream acceptance? At least within the Academy?
  19. Why not? We don't have to agree with everything they say to have them fit that bill (and I think that there is going to be some breakthrough in regards to them as well - it's already happening, what with even a major secular/atheist philospher Thomas Nagel haven written that they have been marginalized unfairly [paraphrasing]). Also, the Discovery Institute isn't just involved with Intelligent Design, ID is only one portion of what they are publishing about. There's no doubt that some of those guys are pretty smart, agree or disagree. I submit that the Discovery Institute can be considered as exhibit A when it comes to a group which is being mocked, while often being not read, or while being misunderstood.
  20. There are Christian intellectuals today. There's actually been an increase of Christians involved with philosophy and teaching it in the universities since Lewis' time, and this probably at least partially influenced by the likes of Plantiga. Coming from this are renowned Protestant philosophers/scholars/apologists like Alvin Plantiga, J.P Moreland, William Lane Craig, Nancy Pearcy etc. There's also the Evangelical Philosophical Society who regularly publishes a journal. Then moving out of the Protestant world there are scholars/philosophers like David Bentley Hart. Or there are Christians thinkers involved with the Discovery Institute (which isn't only Christian, but rather Christians, Jews, and a few agnostics). Then there's still older thinkers like Richard Swinburne and Roger Scruton. Or there's guys like J Warner Wallace, Hugh Ross, and Richard Beck who are combining their previous field of study with Christian thinking and apologetics. It don't think the problem is the lack of Christian intellectuals, there are arguably more than there have ever been, and from what I can tell there are Christians who are reading them. I think the problem is that we are living in a society that has, in general, fallen farther away from Christ than in C.S. Lewis' time and is just simply often more inclined to mock or ignore these thinkers than to consider what they are saying. We're living in a society where a great many people will pick up books by the "Four Horsemen" (and other similar writers) which aren't as intellectually solid as these people are influenced to believe, and then will ignore the plethora of books that show their thinking to be silly. So the problem isn't the lack of Christian intellectuals, the problem is the spiritual climate that they have to contend with right now, and yes, this climate is existing in part because of previous Christian folly. I think the good news is, that we are starting to see the beginning stages of a shift in the world at large, back towards considering what some of these folks have to say. In other words, some of their arguments are stronger than ever, and we might be on the edge of a breakthrough. Time will tell.
  • Create New...