Daily Archives: November 30, 2023

Strange as it may sound, it can be a surprisingly difficult task to determine what the difference between being a theist and an atheist really amounts to. The difficulty comes in when one considers the terms in question. To be a theist is to believe in God, and to be an atheist is not to believe in God. The atheist, having rejected God, normally commits themself to the belief that the ultimate principle and cause of the world and everything in it is nature; but what do the respective terms God and nature really mean? Coming up with joint, non-overlapping definitions is surprisingly difficult. In the theologies of several religions (certainly of traditional Christianity and Judaism), the inherent definition of Gods nature is inaccessible to the human mind. The Divine mystery, it is claimed, is simply beyond us, and admits no definition in terms of ordinary language. True, God is described in these religions as all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful etc., butas Christian theologians like St. Thomas Aquinas or Jewish theologians like Moses Maimonides would saythese terms cannot be said of God in the same way that they are said of human beings. Instead, these properties apply only analogously to God: their meaning when attributed to God shares some sense with their meanings when applied to worldly beings, but the valence changes enough so that the ultimate meanings of the language become mysterious to us.

Philosophers deal with a similar difficulty in trying to describe nature. None of our ordinary definitions of what makes a phenomenon natural rather than supernatural truly fit. Nature evades all of our attempts of understanding in common-sensical language; only the abstracta of mathematics give us any bearing of natures patterns and movements at the highest level of physics (or so my scientist friends tell me), and even then our grasp is multivalent and tenuous. God and Nature: they are both illimitable mysteries to us, so how can we possibly tell the difference between them?

Perhaps I have been somewhat overstating the difficulty. Certainly there are several things that can be uncontroversially ascribed to God that cannot be said of nature. Nature is not, for instance, omni-benevolent as theologians say God is, nor does it have the specifically divine power of bringing something out of nothing (I wanted to say as well that nature lacks an intellect or will as God does, but because there are always panpsychist naturalists among us, so I am cautious of making such a claim). But there is one trait in particular that I want to focus on: one vital trait that belongs specifically to Godor, at least, to an en-Godded worldthat would not apply to a naturalist world whatsoever: that is, universal explanation.

For the theist, everything in the world has a sufficient explanation. Pick any state of affairs in the universe you please; if you ask the question why does this thing exist in the way it does you can always expectwith the proper scrutiny and patienceto find an answer to the question. Why is the oven warm? Because I was baking a pizza; why were you baking a pizza? Because I was hungry; why were you hungry? Because I hadnt eaten, and hunger kicks in when the human body hasnt taken in enough food; but why does hunger begin when the human body hasnt taken in enough food? And so on, and so on. Every question has an answer behind it, and seemingly every answer can (at least on some level) be met with another question about how it comes to be true. But can this line of question and answer go on infinitely? For the theist, the answer is a decisive no. God, as the sole creator and principle of the Universe, is the ultimate explanation for each individual link in the whole chain of question-and-answer: God is the ultimate explanation, and the ultimate terminus of inquiry. But what about God Himself? Why does God exist? The answer to this question signals one of the main differences between the atheistic world-view and the theistic world-view. For the traditional theist, God explains His own existence. The definition of Gods nature encompasses and necessitates the fact of Gods own existenceGod, in other words, cant not exist: His nature explains His existence.

The same cannot be said about nature. The naturalist may say that everything can be explained with reference to the laws of nature, but do the laws themselves have a reason to exist? If they are nothing but physical events, how could they? A physical event might be physically necessary, but to be ontologically necessary (i.e. to be necessary in Being) belongs to a mode of being which transcends our way of thinking about physical things altogethera way of thinking, so the theologians claim, that is appropriate for God only, and not for the various beings of the natural world. If the existence of the laws of nature is invoked as the ultimate fact that explains all other facts, it is an unexplained, ungrounded facta brute fact as philosophers say, a fact which has no more reason for being true than for being false. The theists world-view does not countenance such a possibility. God, for the theist, is not a brute fact: He is self explanatory in His essence. In attempting to explain the existence of the world, atheism cuts the lines of inquiry short at some random event in nature (the big bang for instance), whose status as the beginning-point of nature is an unexplained brute fact. But the theistin saying that God is the explanation for Himself and for everything elsesays that reality is explainable all the way through without remainder. Everything is accounted for, everything makes sense; if only we had the minds to see it.

Image: Lake Chateaugay (photo by author)

Read more from the original source:

God and Nature: What is the difference - The Bubble

My first two critiques (here and here) of Hazonys work were focused on his definitions of liberal and conservative, and his arguments regarding philosophy and economics. In this last critique, I focus on his claims about the necessity of religion as a center for a conservative worldview, as he defines it.

Overall, Hazonys work is at its weakest when he gets into the topic of religion. He is adamant that religious observance is necessary to the healthy functioning of a society, and this necessity is supported by conservatism but undermined by liberalism. And his eagerness to argue this point seems to lead to odd lapses in logic. For example, he tells us that when the Enlightenment philosopher Grotius published the first edition of his On the Law of War and Peace in 1625, he made the mistake of admitting in print that his system would hold true even if there is no God and that by saying this, the fundamental incompatibility of Enlightenment rationalism with the God of Scripture had been made plain. But this makes no sense. Saying that something is and would be true independent of Gods existence in no way implies that its truth is therefore incompatible with Gods existence. Those are very different ideas, yet Hazony is treating them as if they meant the same thing.

But rushing ahead, Hazony assures the reader that a political theory in the conservative tradition cannot be made to work without the God of Scripture. Luckily for the prospects of conservative political theory, his argument for this is extremely weak. He goes on to say, Conservatives understand that all human perspectives are limited and local. But at the same time, conservatives recognize that some perspectives are truer than others, and that we can advance toward ideas and principles that better grasp reality in the political and moral domain. Presumably he thinks this is a point of view that is and can only be held by religious conservatives, but that is plainly false. Nothing about being an atheist entails rejecting the idea that humans have limited perspective, for example atheism does not somehow entail a belief in human omniscience or perfectibility. Nor does atheism entail moral antirealism many atheists are also moral realists who believe we have limited and imperfect but real understandings of morality, and that these understandings can be improved upon even though not perfected. Hazony ignores this and attempts to bolster his argument by just asserting a false dichotomy, saying This is the difference between a relativist theory and a conservative one: The relativist sees in politics and morals a realm in which an endless variety of perspectives compete with one another for power without striving to attain what is true, and without anything being right in Gods eyes. But Hazony offers no non-question-begging reason to believe these are the only options.

Suppose Im an atheist who believes the following ideas: I believe that our ideas of social and political order should be grounded in what experience shows actually works. I believe that the human mind is a limited tool, and that what has been shown to work through accumulated experience is a better guide to action than what people can reason through on their own. I believe life is complicated, far too complicated to grasp directly, and grandiose visions to rebuild the social order are doomed to fail because they will be inevitably built on a hopelessly palsied understanding of reality. And because of this, I believe that longstanding social institutions should hold a strong presumption in favor of being upheld, and that its foolish to assume they are useless simply because you, personally, dont see the point of them. (In fact, this is a pretty accurate description of who I am) Now, if someone attempted to convince me I was wrong about all these ideas by saying You may think that, but actually, the God of Scripture doesnt exist, so nothing you just said is true! I would be at most amused by this non sequitur. I certainly wouldnt think that any of the ideas I described had been rebutted, or even engaged.

If the limitations of the human mind make it too feeble an instrument to design a stable and enduring social order through pure reason, then that fact alone would fully explain why attempts to do such a thing would fail. But Hazony claims that such failures actually show God is acting behind the scenes as a countervailing force which stops every scheme of ideas, and every principle, from expanding infinitely outward until it has subjected all things to its rule. The God of Scripture circumscribes all human things, reducing them to their true proportions. This is explanatorily redundant. If a task is beyond the scope of the human mind, thats enough to explain why attempting that task would fail. Nothing extra is explained by saying such failures are also God keeping humans in check, and nothing about believing some tasks are beyond the scope of the human mind requires believing that a God exists.

Hazony goes on to say: Remove him from your thoughts, and your own scheme of ideas, which is local and incomplete, will begin to expand, overrunning its true boundaries. But he doesnt support this through anything beyond mere assertion. He makes no attempt to show this must be true from experience. Like the Enlightenment thinkers he criticizes, Hazony asserts this as though it were an axiomatic, self-evident truth. But experience does not bear him out on this point, as there are many thinkers whose worldviews are deeply rooted in religion who are also philosophical rationalists, and there are many secular thinkers whose worldview is equally deeply rooted in empiricism, the importance of experience over abstract reason, and an awareness of the limitations of the human mind.

Hazony is very fond of using blindness as a description for his ideological opponents. Its never the case that someone who disagrees with him might understand his argument but be unconvinced by it he repeatedly insists they are blind to the reality he describes. Thus, its not the case that liberals understand but disagree with conservatives on nationalism instead, the liberal paradigm is blind to the nation. Its not that liberals might understand but disagree with conservative perspective, its that liberals have been educated in such a way as to leave them blind to the importance of these things. Hazony seems to think his perspective is so self-evidently true that its impossible to see it but not share it if you dont accept his ideas, you must therefore be blind to them.

To be fair, Hazony doesnt think this is an exclusive description of liberals so much as an inevitable side effect of using political paradigms. He says when an important concept or idea has been left out of a political paradigm, those who rely on this paradigm will be blind to political objects of the kind this concept is meant to identify. They will neither see them nor understand their role in the political domain. So, in principle, this should also hold true of people whose worldview is shaped by a conservative paradigm. Yet Hazony show remarkably little curiosity about where his own paradigm might leave him blind, and what he might fail to see or understand as a result. I suspect Hazonys worldview is so deeply embedded with the idea of the Biblical God that he cant comprehend that there are worldviews out there not rooted in his religion that also embrace historical empiricism and epistemic humility, uphold traditions and inherited institutions, and reject moral antirealism. A possible unintended consequence of Hazonys book may be to further fracture the conservative movement by alienating such secular conservatives rather than make a common cause with them, by insisting they cannot be true members of the conservative moment or opponents of rationalist political theory unless they also happen to embrace the Abrahamic God he believes in.

And that would be unfortunate, because despite the many quibbles and criticisms I have laid out here, I think Hazony has written an excellent and thought-provoking book. On many points I agree with what he says, and I think he offers strong arguments for many of his views I dont share. While I find much to disagree with in Hazonys book, there is also much to agree with and to learn from. The good points Hazony makes in his book remain good points independent of his religious doctrine, even if he doesnt see it that way. And thats enough for me, even if it falls short for him.

See the rest here:

Critiquing Hazony - On Religion and Rationalism - Econlib

Macbeth loses his head and soul in the unknowing clouds of his own sin-deceived ego. So does Nietzsche. Far from seeing life as a quest for truth, they are left with nothing but their own bitter inquest on life, signifying nothing. This is the deepest consequence of their rejection of faith and reason.

Ive recently enjoyed six months of discussions on Henri de Lubacs masterpiece, The Drama of Atheist Humanism, with Father Fessio and Vivian Dudro as part of our ongoing series of book discussions for the FORMED Book Club. One of the things that puzzled us was the choice of title. Why would de Lubac frame his study of the ideas of the major atheist philosophers of the nineteenth century as a drama? The answer to this puzzling question didnt fully emerge until the final part of the book in which de Lubac dissects the decline and fall of Friedrich Nietzsche. It was only at this point that the history of humanism in the nineteenth century is revealed as darkly comic and deeply tragic, culminating in a providentially ironic denouement of such dramatic power that it could be seen as a delightfully grotesque tragicomedy.

The drama that de Lubac narrates was such that it seemed to be worthy of the stage but then, as Shakespeare reminds us, the world is a stage and all the men and women of history merely players on times stage. It is, therefore, appropriate to see the striking parallels between the real-life factual character of Friedrich Nietzsche and the larger-then-life fictional character of Macbeth who prefigures Nietzsche in his manic pursuit of self-empowerment in defiance of reason.

Like his tragic Shakespearean forerunner, Nietzsche begins by abandoning reason in pursuit of power. From the very outset, his denial of the existence of God had nothing to do with any rational process of thought: Atheism, is not, for me, the consequence of something else in my case it is something that goes without saying, a matter of instinct. In similar vein, his rejection of Christianity had nothing to do with any rational process of thought and everything to do with pride and its prejudices: [I]t is our preference that decides against Christianity not arguments.

If Nietzsches atheism and anti-Christianity is irrational, there is nonetheless a reason for it, a rationale for his irrationality. The man who refuses to subject himself to reason is freed from the rational constraints that reason imposes. He is the freed man, liberated by the will to power (der Wille zur Macht), who can do what he likes and to whom nothing is now forbidden. The rule of reason, this last bondage, must be cast off. [W]e have abolished the world of truth, Nietzsche proclaimed; nothing is true.

The consequences of such abandonment of reason to the appetite for self-empowerment was obvious enough, even to Nietzsche. The philosopher, he wrote, is a terrible explosive from which nothing is safe.

This being so, de Lubac comments, it was not surprising that the drama that had taken shape in human minds quickly reached the point at which it burst forth in fire and slaughter.

Ironically, Nietzsche would have agreed with de Lubac. I herald the coming of a tragic era, he said, assuming the role of a self-proclaimed prophet of doom. We must be prepared for a long succession of demolitions, devastations and upheavals. [T]here will be wars such as the world has never yet seen. Europe will soon be enveloped in darkness. These words, written at the end of the nineteenth century, would prove to be truly prophetic of the new century about to be born. Europe would soon be enveloped in darkness. It would suffer two wars such as the world had never yet seen, with weapons of mass destruction, produced by those serving the will to power, beyond the imagination of more primitive peoples.

As for who would be to blame for such destruction, Nietzsche claimed that he would himself be responsible for it. Thanks to me, he wrote, a catastrophe is at hand.

His words were true enough, even though others would share the blame, including Comte and Marx, both of whom played leading roles in the drama of atheist humanism which de Lubac recounts.

As for Nietzsche, his ideas would prove not merely destructive but self-destructive. There is more than a suggestion, for instance, that he had ceased to believe his own philosophy and that the living of the lie might have contributed to his final descent into madness. I must persist in my dream under pain of perishing, he wrote. De Lubac is masterful in teasing out the psychological consequences of Nietzsches refusal to confess the lie that he was living: He who smelled out so subtly and flogged so harshly the unconscious hypocrisies of others, he it is who has become in the final analysis, not a masked man, but the man of the mask, almost, as it were, a theoretician of the self-indulgent, obstinate illusion, an adorer of a fiction that he knows quite well in the depths of his heart to be a fiction.

De Lubacs reading of Nietzsches self-deception is borne out by the words that Nietzsche puts in the mouth of his alter ego, Zarathustra: In truth, I advise you, get far away from me, defend yourself against Zarathustra! Better still, be ashamed of him. Perhaps he has deceived you. Or, as de Lubac suggests, perhaps he had deceived himself.

As early as 1883, long before the onset of madness, Nietzsche confessed to being on the brink of suicidal despair: I will not hide it from you, he wrote to a friend. Things are going very badly. Night overwhelms me more and more. I believe that I am walking ineluctably to my ruin. The barrel of a gun is now a source of relatively pleasant reflections for me. A month later, he wrote that he was no longer interested in anything: At the very depths of my being, a black and immutable melancholy. The worst is that I no longer understand at all to what purpose I should continue to live, be this only for six months ahead. Everything seems wearisome, painful, disgusting to me. Considering that Nietzsches whole philosophy is rooted in radical egocentrism, with the self as the centre of its self-empowered cosmos, it is the very self who is everything. Since this is so, the wearisome painful everything that is disgusting to Nietzsche must ultimately be a radical self-disgust.

We will conclude our survey of Nietzsches decline and fall in the company of his alter ego, not Zarathustra but Macbeth.

Having accepted the lie of the wyrd sisters that fair is foul, and foul is fair, Macbeth seeks to go boldly beyond good and evil blazing a self-delusional trail that Nietzsche would discover and follow almost three centuries later. Having chosen power over reason, Macbeth will live increasingly in the narrow and narrowing confines of his own head, making himself the centre of his own contracted and constricted cosmos. As he speaks to himself in secret, divorcing himself from others, his subjective perception supersedes objective reality. His decay is, therefore, as much a decay of philosophy as it is a decay of morality. The more he thinks of himself, the less he thinks of others, and the less he thinks of others, the less he thinks of the Other, i.e. the truth that transcends the self. The result is that his first thought of murder coincides with the murder of thought:

My thought, whose murder yet is but fantastical,

Shakes so my single state of man

That function is smothered in surmise,

And nothing is but what is not. (1.3.138-141)

As Macbeths pride takes pride of place on the throne of his soul, he begins to lose his sense of reality. Sin smothers reason so that the normal function of a mans mind, which is to seek and find the truth, is smothered in surmise until nothing is but what is not. Thus, Macbeths nihilism, which will come to bitter and futile fruition in the final act with his dismissal of life as a tale/Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,/Signifying nothing, is seen to have its roots in the plays opening act with his turning away from fides et ratio towards infidelity and irrationality.

When we see Nietzsche in the light or the shadow of Macbeth, we see him as a disciple of his great fictional forerunner. Long before there was the madness of Nietzsche, there was the madness of Macbeth.

Macbeth loses his head and soul in the unknowing clouds of his own sin-deceived ego. So does Nietzsche. Far from seeing life as a quest for truth, they are left with nothing but their own bitter inquest on life, signifying nothing. This is the deepest consequence of their rejection of faith and reason. In losing sight of the significance of others, or the Other, they lose sight of the significance of everything else. In choosing themselves above others, they are not even left with themselves. They lose everything, perhaps even their own souls. They are left with the nothing which is nothing else but the real absence of the good that they have rejected, the ultimate annihilation to which nihilism points.

The Imaginative Conservativeapplies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politicswe approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please considerdonating now.

The featured image is a painting by Charles A. Buchel of Herbert Beerbohm Tree (18521917) as Macbeth in Macbeth by William Shakespeare. This file is in the public domain, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

See the original post:

Macbeth Revisited: The Decline & Fall of Friedrich Nietzsche - The Imaginative Conservative

The The Fine-Tuning Problem theory posits that even if one thing went different in the creation of the universe, nothing would exist.

If you follow physics, you have heard about the hypothesis that there are multiverses multiple universes. But its unlikely you know the origin of this belief. Bobby Azarian provided the answer in his book, The Romance of Reality. Azarian is a science journalist with a Ph.D. in cognitive neuroscience from George Mason University in northern Virginia.

According to Azarian, cosmologists discovered that if the value of a certain parameter of our universe, like the strength of the gravitational force, or the electromagnetic force, or the speed of light, were altered only slightly, we would not just have a universe with no life, wed likely have a universe with no planets or stars or physical objects either . Azarian calls this The Fine-Tuning Problem.

Stephen Hawking noted The remarkable fact is that there that the values of these numbers seem to have very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life .

Daniel Dennett, a highly respected atheist and skeptic quoted in Darwins Dangerous Idea:

If we change any of these values by the tiniest amount, we thereby posit a universe in which none of this could have happened, and indeed which apparently nothing life-like could ever have emerged: no planets, no atmospheres, no solids at all, no elements except hydrogen and helium, or maybe not even thatjust some boring plasmas of hot, undifferentiated stuff, or an equally boring nothingness. So isnt it a wonderful fact that the laws are just right for us to exist?

This Fine-Tuning Problem reopened the debate about a cosmic designer to the dismay of many atheists. In this case,[according to Azarian] that designer must be the god of deism God was the great watchmaker (a big metaphor of 18th century philosophers and scientists) who created the universe wound it up, and then left it alone for humans to discover. This stance should not be confused with the intelligent design movement because an intelligent creator, designer, or programmer that doesnt intervene is consistent with science .

But, If our universe is the only universe in reality, it would be extremely improbable to find ourselves in a fine-tuned cosmos by chance.

Azarian goes on: But If you dont assume that our universe is the only one in existence, the fine-tuning problem seems to disappear . In other words, some scientists and philosophers created the belief in an infinite number of universes because they opposed the idea that there was a creator.

This position, popular with atheists, reduces lifes significance once again and restores the idea that reality in its totality is purposeless and mostly, if not entirely, meaningless. Today, many leading theoretical physicists and cosmologists support the idea of a cosmological multiverse, despite an inability to test the theory empirically [emphasis mine] (263).

Scientific proof is based upon the concept of falsifiability. According to explorable.com: Falsifiability is the assertion that for any hypothesis to have credence, it must be inherently disprovable before it can become accepted as a scientific hypothesis or theory .

The hypothesis that multiverses exist can neither be proved or disproved. Therefore, according the above definition, it should have no credence. But this is not the case. Why not? The obvious answer is that there are many scientists and philosophers who dont want to believe there might be a creatoreven if it is a deist creator who created life as we know it on earth and then left it to humans to tend.

Another scientific theory called Occams Razor teaches us that The principle gives precedence to simplicity: of two competing theories, the simpler explanation of an entity is to be preferred . The simplest explanation for why life exists on earth today is because there was a creator who made it.

Now you know why and how the belief in multiverses came into existence. Now you know the rest of the story. The implications are enormous for all of us.

Originally posted here:

Occam's Razor: There is a Creator | In Focus | Courier-Herald - Enumclaw Courier-Herald

Published 6:38 am Wednesday, November 29, 2023

By Steve Stricker Columnist

Thanksgiving to Christmas, 32 days, The Miracle Zone! Thanksgiving, pure holiday humbly thankful for what the Lord has given us. gathering with family or being alone and okay. Then, paradigm shift of gears (manual transmission), 3rd, 4th into 5th and wild dash to wonderful, magical, miraculous, electricity in the air Christmas.

One of my favorite TV shows on CBS from October 2, to June 19, 1964 watched on our home black and white TV, was The Twilight Zone by Rod Serling. Rather difficult to explain this show, other than Serling had to be eating weird mushrooms as he wrote each episodeI loved it as one could never fathom the bizarre outcome.

The same is true of the Miracle Zone, but youve got to believe in God if you believe no explanation is necessary if you dont believe, no explanation is possible. A miracle has no secular, or medical explanation and no logical explanation. It cannot be made clear to a non-believer and even to a believer seems like eating those weird mushrooms hard to explain to oneself! Miracles are meant to prove Gods revelation and must be marked with a divine character that can be sensed, and even those ignorant will realize its authenticity. Such as at Lourdes, France or Oxford, Mississippi.

If a non-believer and something awesome happens that cant be explained, it could just be a coincidence and it could be God trying to get their attention. The miracles in my life are always accompanied by my prayers, be it surviving so many deadly situations in Vietnam, many incidents after, life saved days after saying a nine-day novena, engagement to a professed atheist broken (whew), finding something important lost after praying to St. Anthony (never lets me down), or my mechanic mentor, buddy the Holy Spirit allowing me to solve a difficult problem that I prayed to him for, or putting words in my mouth that didnt come from my wee brain.

Christmas, the miraculous birth of our Lord, is above all other times of the year THE time of miracles and I always look for a BIG one! Looking hard now. Truthfully, Im a basket case and look for a miracle every minute of every day and get them!

There are many wonderful characters in the history of wonderful Oxford and I am not of one of them, just a weird guy devoted to God, misunderstood, lives alone with that cat, Jag who goes to sleep when I try to talk to him, extremely introverted, sailed through distance respected COVID19, okay being alone on Thanksgiving eating deviled eggs from Kroger, brief contact with my church friends at daily Mass, little connection with my biological family because I am not going to travel due to physical issues, totally uncomfortable in groups requiring small talk result of perhaps pulling way into myself returning from Vietnam, working with way too many shallow people interested in only themselves, being retired, dont have to do anything and secure enough with who I am to not care.

And after wearing a coat and tie for over 21 years every day, I work at dressing down T-shirt, jeans, light Ole Miss windbreaker. Result Miracle Zone my friends are my very dear true friends along with my oldest son Stephen, my cat Jag, who accept me for who I am and are the most important people in my life and are THE miracle in my life!

Steve Stricker received his Ph.D. in Counselor Education from Ole Miss. He can be reached at, sstricker@olemiss.edu.

Read more here:

We've officially entered the Miracle Zone - The Oxford Eagle - Oxford Eagle

Sometimes to go forwards, you take two steps backwards to re-discover what made you successful. This is exactly what Muse have done with their latest album, Absolution XX, which is a 20th anniversary remix of their 2003 album, Absolution.

The album features the same track listings as its original album, with the Japanese bonus track, titled Fury added as a base track, something that Im very happy about, as it is an amazing song and one that us UK listeners missed out on, during the albums original release on the 15thSeptember 2003.

Not only this, but all the songs have been remastered using modern technology and some songs have been changed, with some songs appearing as extras with demos, live performances and stripped audio, songs like Apocalypse Please, Butterflies and Hurricanes with Ruled By Secrecy are vocals and keyboard only, adding an extra layer of emotion to each song, something that us Muse fans have missed in their most recent albums.

With that, I think its time to see how Matt Bellamy, Chris Wolstenholme and Dom Howards latest piece racks up.

As mentioned previously, the Absolution XX remix is proof of Muses maturation as a band, going from plain, heavy rock as seen in their debut and sophomore albums, Showbiz and Origin of Symmetry respectively, to more piano and acoustic elements in the original release of Absolution and Black Holes and Revelations, to more electronic rock in both The 2nd Law and Simulation Theory, with Drones falling back on Muses original style of heavy rock, implementing some softer rock, as also seen in Will of the People.

However, this isnt the first remix album that Muse released, as in 2021, they released Origin of Symmetry XX, in which all songs were given a fresh sound, and overall sounding a lot cleaner and more-in-depth compared to the originals, a concept which Muse have applied to Absolution XX.

From Apocalypse Please to Hysteria and Blackout and Fury, every song has been refreshed, with demos from the early 2000s and live performances of select songs from the same period. These performances havent been refreshed in the same way as what the studio tracks have, but that isnt a loss, as it demonstrates the vocal talents of Bellamy perfectly, as it is a common belief among Muse fans, dubbed Musers, that Matt does in fact sound better live than he does in studio recordings. This is proven, in my opinion, in the 2004 performance of Thoughts of a Dying Atheist at the Wiltern Theatre, Canada. This song portrays emotions surrounding Bellamys fear of death as an Atheist, who doesnt believe in Heaven or Hell, hearing people around him who passed in his lifetime. The live performance of this really emphasising these points, with lyrics full of emotion and power. Another example being the 2004 Earls Court performance of Hysteria, where Wolstenholme is incredible, playing possibly the hardest bassline to perfection, which backed up with incredibly powerful vocals, is a cut above the studio performance.

However, with all albums, it isnt all swings and roundabouts, as there are some great songs on the regular album that havent been shown as much love. One stand out example is the aforementioned Japanese bonus track Fury, which has been released on this album in its original form, it didnt have a live version released, which I dont believe is fair to the track, as the many live performances found online would have been great to include, but it is understandable to give Fury a miss, as the album is well above average in terms of track numbers, with 26 in total.

Another song in a similar situation is the song that beat Fury to the original release, The Small Print, which was voted by Wolstenholme and Howard to feature as a worldwide release, against Bellamys wishes to have Fury on the album. To think that The Small Print was the more popular song among the trio, and it didnt get a demo or a live performance released, almost suggests that the song was either overlooked or completely ignored, instead favouring an instrumental demo of Falling Away With You, which is titled by many as one of Absolutions weakest tracks, which while it is full of emotion and wishes, I do agree with.

On another plus, however, the mix between acoustic songs, such as Sing for Absolution, Ruled By Secrecy and Blackout featuring as multiple versions on the album, and the heavier tracks, like Hysteria and Stockholm Syndrome as different versions provides an emotional rollercoaster for the listener, as some songs are polar opposites in terms of composition, yet they all fit perfectly within the albums theme of dystopia, something that the band lives and breathes when composing albums.

In my opinion, this album is worth a listen for the average listener, as it provides a perfect introduction to Muse, and shows how a small band from Devon made huge waves, tsunamis even, in the music world by releasing an almost perfectly remastered album, 20 years after the original release.

See more here:

Album Review: Muse - Absolution XX Anniversary - Soundsphere magazine