amarbledesk.com
a nil amount of space
| archive for December, 2005 |
Venison Burgundy
25 Dec 2005 20:52 EST
For Christmas this year, at the request of the kids. For venison, we used farm-raised elk we purchased at the Columbus North Market‘s “Poultry and Game“. For the wine, we used a California Pinot Noir, I believe from Camelot but I don’t remember for sure. This is a two-part recipe where you can eat both parts. Part one is a stew, and part two is the barbeque!
Ingredients, Part One
- One venison brisket
- Thyme (fresh or dried)
- Minced garlic (we go through so much garlic we buy it in large jars pre-chopped and packed in oil)
- Kosher salt
- Freshly ground black pepper
- Yellow onions, peeled and quartered
- Whole crimini mushrooms
- Carrots, roughly chopped
- Burgundy, Beaujolais, or Pinot Noir wine
Thoroughly wash and rinse the brisket. Remove the membrane and any excess fat (there probably won’t be too much excess fat on a fine beast like this; but it’s important to remove the membrane since that will impart a gamey taste which is not entirely pleasant.)
Rub the venison with thyme, garlic, salt, and pepper. Place meat in crockpot. Add onions, mushrooms, and carrots. Add 1/4 to 1/2 bottle of the wine.
Cook on low heat for a very long time, at least 6-8 hours. Add liquid only if necessary, and season with salt and pepper to taste.
Serve with appropriate accompaniments to your taste, and of course, the rest of that bottle of red wine.
Ingredients, Part Two:
- Leftover venison from Part One, cooled
- Good barbeque sauce (we use Sweet Baby Ray’s)
- Sandwich buns
Chop the cooled leftover venison. Add barbeque sauce to moisten, and heat thoroughly in a deep skillet or saucepan. Serve on toasted buns. This barbequed game is simply extraterrestrial. Seriously, the BBQ was even better than the original stew, in my opinion, although both were hits all around.
Atheism and Moral Basis
13 Dec 2005 21:46 EST
Amid all the hubbub in recent months over atheism — the lawsuits brought by notorious and obnoxious atheists, the mistrust of atheists evinced in polls, the relatively small percentage of atheists to be found in America — I as an atheist certainly am given pause.
There are many reasons for a choice of atheism, and many different versions of atheism. And certainly many misconceptions about it. I’m not going to discuss them all here — that’s for another time — but here is one particular item that bothers me.
There is one presumption about atheists which is common to both atheists and non-atheists alike. It’s the “moral basis” problem. To wit, without a God or punishment in the afterlife or other such supernatural moral agency guiding behavior … why should an atheist be moral?
Non-atheists (a clumsy term, but “theists” isn’t quite right in this case) commonly hold this belief, as I understand it. “Atheists don’t believe in God or Hell or the Commandments,” (so it goes) “so what is stopping them from being thieves, rapists, and murderers?”
Many atheists also hold this belief, unfortunately. There are many atheists (who I would call “reactionary” atheists due to their anti-religious views) who also believe that there is no moral right or wrong other than their own self-interest. At least they talk that way…
Personally, the “moral basis” has never been a problem for me. As an atheist, I can nonetheless believe in a natural right to life; a natural order of morality; and that certain actions such as murder and abortion are intrinsically wrong, without reference to a God, Heaven or Hell. I can believe, for example, that the Ten Commandments are for the most part a pretty good moral framework, if not something to be followed word-for-word. I can certainly believe from a purely scientific and common-sense point of view that a fetus is a defenseless baby and you shouldn’t kill it. I’m not sure how many other atheists, though, are pro-life like I am.
——————————-
One interesting point in one of the linked articles above which supports my contention that many journalists are either idiots or think the rest of us are. Dig this quote from Editor and Publisher:
Surprisingly, some 61% of those who seldom or never attend church are nevertheless convinced that God exists.
“Surprisingly”? “Nevertheless”? Common sense actually tells me that result is not surprising at all. Of course many people who seldom attend Church believe in God. Most people do. Why is this surprising?
Narnia, Narnia, Narnia, Narnia …
09 Dec 2005 14:02 EST
What is wrong with these people other than anti-Christianism? And I ask this as a dyed-in-the-wool atheist….
Philip Pullman, an acclaimed children’s author, has described the “Chronicles” as “sadomasochistic” and “one of the most ugly and poisonous things I’ve ever read.”
…And…
In October, after Florida Gov. Jeb Bush chose “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe” for a state-sponsored reading list, Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State said the selection was tantamount to state promotion of religion and thus “constitutionally problematic”
See also http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/12/7/93338/2782
Polly Toynbee of the UK’s Guardian:
Of all the elements of Christianity, the most repugnant is the notion of the Christ who took our sins upon himself and sacrificed his body in agony to save our souls.
I mean, really. First of all, the Narnia books were published in 1950 and have been on library shelves, bookstores, schools for over half a century. And now they are a problem? It just goes to prove that leftists aren’t as well read as they claim to be, or else they wouldn’t have had to wait for the movie to come out to bash Narnia.
Like I said, I’m an atheist. But I am comfortable with my atheism, and unlike with many other foks (see Toynbee and Pullman, above) my atheism is not a childish reaction to having religion stuffed down my throat as a kid. Honestly, Toynbee and her like sound like nothing more than rebellious teenagers: whatever mummy and daddy believed in is bad, bad, bad, no matter its substance.
It’s ridiculous to find Christology “repugnant”. If you don’t believe in Christ, well, then turn the channel. Don’t screech about it, just get on with your life and find something you do believe in (if anything). And I really have nothing good to say about these “Americans United for Separation of Church and State”. Seeing Crosses and hearing “Merry Christmas” and handling money with “In God We Trust” printed on it does no one any harm. It may cause offense, but offense is not harm. Christianity has its good points and its bad points, like everything else in this world. A great deal of history’s (and modern times) greatest thinkers have not only been Christian, but have done their work within a very Christian framework and mindset. Christian moral philosophy is a serious moral framework that deserves to be judged on its own merits. Etc. My point is, a lot of the prominent leftist / atheist noise in the media today is not about diversity or separation of church and state or freedom of/from religion. It is quite transparently anti-Christian, and I as a moral, knowledgeable atheist find THAT repugnant.
Narnia & LOTR vs. HP
08 Dec 2005 19:30 EST
As discussed just about anywhere now, the Chronicles of Narnia are certainly chock-full of religious themes. Lord of the Rings is less blatantly religious, but Tolkien’s work as a whole is based firmly in theology. What about Harry Potter (not that I consider it YET to be on the level of Narnia or LOTR; only time will tell)? Certainly good vs. evil is there. But what if any theology is present in Harry Potter? Rowling’s oeuvre is limited to the Harry Potter books themselves, so unlike with Tolkien and Lewis we have no supporting clues to her message with respect to religion. Quite likely there is no message there…unlike Lewis and Tolkien, Rowling is a modern British writer. Modern Britain strikes me as only vaguely Christian any more.
Author/Work: Lewis/TLTWATW
Theology in this work? Blatant
Theology in entire oeuvre? Vehemently so
Religious in personal life? Very
Author/Work: Tolkien/LOTR
Theology in this work? Only obliquely
Theology in entire oeuvre? Very much so
Religious in personal life? One of the major modern Christian popular theologians of the 20th century…
Author/Work: Rowling/HP
Theology in this work? Characters celebrate Xmas and say “Oh My God”. That’s about it.
Theology in entire oeuvre? No other works yet
Religious in personal life? Got me.
This guy says Rowling may be a modern Inkling, but I reserve judgment awaiting further proof. And if Rowling is trying for subtle religiousity, a lot of folks (aka idiots) are of the opinion it’s not in the Christian direction, shall we say. I don’t believe Rowling is trying for a theological theme, just a moral one.
Superstring "Theory"
07 Dec 2005 19:47 EST
So I’m on a superstring kick. Just finished reading John C. Taylor’s Hidden Unity in Nature’s Laws, and I am about to finish Brian Greene’s The Elegant Universe. I had to bone up on some abstract algebra to get the most of it, but that was worth it. I’m glad to know more about this theory now. I’d call it science, but it’s not. It’s math. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Taylor’s book was well-written and a good read. He didn’t overplay the cards of string theory and laid a good expository background and stated the problem space even-handedly.
Greene’s book: not so well-written, sometimes a good read. First impression: man he is arrogant. Not so much about himself (although occasionally he is), but very very arrogant about string theory. What starts out funny ends up almost pathological: after repeatedly vehemently claiming that String Theory can solve everything (!) it gets sad when you realize that not only is there no experimental falsification possible, but you don’t really gain any elegance!
The first idea behind string theory was that it could get rid of those 20 or so “free parameters” that had to be plugged by hand into the Standard Model to explain our universe. Well, string theory gets rid of THOSE parameters and trades them for 20 or so free parameters that have to be plugged in to explain the topologies of the various strings and branes posited. To what end? How then is String Theory any more explanatory … let alone “right” … if it makes no predictions and is just as arbitrary as the theoretical framework it wants to replace?
As this blog puts it, String Theory is “Not Even Wrong”.
about mark beadles
I write the things you read here. Polymath renaissance redneck. I build software, stories, and young men. More...on the desk
around the web
in the vault
-
