User:Evensteven

Unified login: Evensteven is the unique login of this user for all public Wikimedia projects.

This editor is a
Yeoman Editor
and is entitled to display this Service Badge.

Identity & Background This user is an Eastern Orthodox Christian. This user is a native of the United States of America. BAThis user has a Bachelor of Arts degree in Mathematics and Music. MMusThis user has a Master of Music degree. MSThis user has a Master of Science degree in Computer Science. This user has been a member of Wikipedia since 09 May 2013.

Language (Babel, search) en-us -NThis user is a native speaker of American English. man- kindRegarding gender, this user prefers the vernacular, not what is politically correct. they he or sheThis user considers the singular they to be substandard English usage. This user tries to do the right thing. If they make a mistake, please let them know. A, B, and CThis user prefers the serial comma. fr-3Cet utilisateur peut contribuer avec un niveau avancé de français.

On Wikipedia This user has been on Wikipedia for 12 years, 4 months and 28 days. 5,000+This user has made more than 5,000 contributions to Wikipedia. This user thinks that registration should be required to edit articles. This user is a participant in WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. This user participates in WikiProject Christianity. This user participates in WikiProject Bible. This user is a participant in WikiProject Time. This user is a participant of WikiProject Measurement. This user participates in WikiProject Astronomy. This user is a member of the Antarctica Highways WikiProject. This user is not an administrator and has no desire to be one. This user is aware that, in the end, it's only Wikipedia.

Personal ubx-5This user uses entirely too many userboxes. This user is interested in the history of Christianity. This user believes that evolution doesn't have to conflict with Christianity. ...This user would like to know oodles more languages. This user uses Microsoft Windows under duress. TCP/IPThe user was active on the Internet before the World Wide Web was invented.WWW This user knows that American Independence occured on July 2, 1776. This user has visited 37 of the 50 United States.37 This user greatly admires Abraham Lincoln. This user is an independent voter who doesn't like partisan politics. This user believes in a foreign policy of non‐interven­tionism, but is not a pacifist. This user supports protection of the environment. This user realises that what we take for granted today may not be here for our children. This user is interested in the history of the lands comprising the United Kingdom.   This user prefers the metric system. This user is interested in astronomy. This user enjoys classical music. This user enjoys jazz music. cRap This user can't stand rap music. This user is a baritone. This user enjoys the works of J. R. R. Tolkien. LOTR This user loves The Lord of the Rings books but NOT the films. This user enjoys the works of Jane Austen. Eh up! This user enjoys the James Herriot series. LH ←This user is a southpaw. This user likes Ice cream. This user's deviation is standard.

Born American, raised Episcopalian, settled in Christian Orthodoxy.

I'm getting to know the Answer to life, the universe, and everything: Jesus, the Christ, the Son of the Living God. But that's because He knew me first. As for answers, I have a start on a few; there never is any real conclusion to that process in this life. So I like a really good question better: opening up lines of inquiry, exploration, vistas, giving life room to search and grow. Best of all are the ultimate questions, the ones where answers aren't the real goal, where the only answer is to live in a quest, and the quest is the answer, where one seeks in order to find, only to find what it is even better to seek. Which is the point where one needs to refer back to the Answer and cycle again.

I like looking outside the box, and dislike lack of vision and legalism. I value courtesy highly and therefore disdain political correctness, which seeks only to legislate courtesy, while both courtesy and correctness come only from the heart. I am Orthodox, not orthodox, not conventional, not conservative, not afraid of change, not afraid of tradition, not status quo, not dedicated to innovation for its own sake. The new sometimes (not always) deserves a chance to prove itself, but does not do so until stress-tested, and may also deserve to die. The old sometimes (not always) deserves a chance to remain rooted in place, and to grow, but sometimes suffers from rot. Where there's a garden, there is cultivation, and there are weeds. It takes a Gardener to know the difference, and to wield the hoe.

I think Wikipedia was a fine idea, built to thrive on good will and freedom (together, inseparably). Today, I find it damaged by editors who refuse to put its high ideals, particularly civility, into practice. Those who do not expect to learn anything from editing cannot be expected to have anything constructive to contribute. They also drive away countless others who are constructive, as they have been doing for years. It is a great shame.

Short essay on science and Christianity

"It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature. -- Neils Bohr, as quoted in Rhodes, Richard (2012) [1987], The Making of the Atomic Bomb, Simon & Schuster, p. 77, ISBN 978-1-4516-7761-4

I admire Bohr's succinct correction about attitudes to physics, and by extension, to all sciences. He was ever reticent, even unwilling, to express or promulgate "laws of nature", and resistant, even opposed to the notion that physics [science] might actually be able to arrive at absolute truths or principles. Instead, he preferred to refer to "viewpoints" or "lines of reasoning", and refused to "carry argument beyond physical evidence", placing strict limits on abstraction. He rejected the idea that physics could afford to be authoritarian, "rigidly governed by mechanistic cause and effect". Thus predisposed, he worked out (beginning in 1911 and 1912) his discoveries about the nature of the atom that led to the establishment of the theory of quantum mechanics and to his 1922 Nobel Prize (ref to Rhodes, ch 3). Even today this foundational approach to science is not widely appreciated outside the ranks of professional scientists, and not always even then.

It is perhaps remarkable then that the Orthodox Christian faith reflects a parallelism of such attitude within religion. It views God Himself as the authority, the only real authority, the only absolute, these things therefore not being abstractions but characteristics of the infinite being of God, and indeed, manifestations of His action. But finite humans, unable to grasp the infinite but only to apprehend it in a limited fashion, are restricted to an experience of portions: the concrete, the practical, the example, the situation, the life of change and growth. The ultimate authority Himself is not authoritarian, nor rigid, nor abstract, nor legalistic, but relational, within Himself, and with people. Humans do not arrive at absolute truths, but the absolute God comes to be with humans. And people respond with all those qualities that humans have, viewpoints, perceptions, lines of reasoning, intuitions, and relations in community. Thus, Orthodox theology and doctrine depend first on God and what He reveals, but are not themselves the whole of Him, nor absolute. His revelation of Himself is true and does not change. But it is wrong to think that the task of Orthodox theology is to describe (much less find out) what God's nature is. Orthodox theology concerns what we can say about God.

This compatibility of outlook is but one example of how science and Christianity are not fundamentally opposed to each other. Most conflicts have within their germinations a certain rigidity of posture, the assumption of mechanistic principles that can drive adherents towards the proclamation of absolutes. Neither science nor religion are free of this very human, though flawed, tendency to carry argument beyond evidence, even beyond revelation. But the tendency can also continue, carrying intuition beyond those boundaries, leading us to draw unwarranted conclusions. The remedy in science is as Bohr described, to adhere to the physical evidence (and also to pursue experiment to obtain more evidence). The remedy in Christianity is to adhere to God, in relationship and community, so that our personal perceptions do not outrun God's revelations to His Church. In both, the individual is capable of seeking out insights (new to the person, perhaps to others), but the promise of increasing wisdom first means much work, then communication, and also confirmation within the scientific or religious community.

Neils Bohr used to say "no paradox, no progress", meaning that without puzzles and contradictions we don't have pointers to the really fruitful areas for growing understanding. Similarly, Orthodox Christianity might paraphrase him in "no mystery, no life", meaning that without the holy mysteries given us by God, we don't have the means to grow in knowledge of God, the Life-giver, wherein our finite human being reaches into the infinite image of God.

Perfect opinion piece

You're Reading This? Perfect

Perfection, I had always figured, was elusive and painstakingly hard-won, if not wholly unattainable. It was something for which you quested through years of sweat-on-your-brow toil. Now I regularly achieve perfection by barely lifting a finger.

Opting for black beans on my burrito while I shuffle along the serving station at a certain fast-casual restaurant? The wielder of the big spoon pronounces the choice "perfect". My chest swells a little as I move to the next options, proud not to have fallen for the obviously second-tier pinto beans. I admit that I'm a little crestfallen when my choices of chicken and mild salsa elicit no response from the servers, but when I go for cheese over sour cream, there it is again: "Perfect," the young woman on the other side of the glass chirps with practiced delight.

I have done no scientific studies or linguistic analyses, but lately it seems like America, however imperfect its democracy might be, is speeding toward utter flawlessness in the public sphere.

I have been "perfect" for ordering iced tea sans lemon. My decision to upgrade to a midsized rental car? "Perfect." The fact that I brought my own reusable bag to my neighborhood Safeway? A "perfect" uttered so enthusiastically you would've thought I alone had reversed global warming. Even the act of signing my name at the bottom of escrow documents brought a "perfect" from the loan officer, though a half-hearted effort, I must say.

At dinner in a restaurant with my family, I can only look on with smug condescension after my "perfect" entrée choice (salt-rubbed salmon) is followed by my wife's selection of a chicken dish that merits only an "excellent choice" —clearly the honorable mention in this waiter's personal rating scale.

Where are we headed with this trendy dilution of perfection? As with participation trophies for all in youth soccer leagues, the blithe bestowing of unearned distinction cheapens the entire concept of perfection, which should be a rare and precious thing.

Alas, we are all Nadia Comaneci now. We all receive perfect 10s, even from the Russian judges. Makes me long for those more modest days of not so long ago, when everything was merely awesome.

— Sam McManis, Wall Street Journal opinion page, Tuesday, 17 May 2016

Points of View

It was only many days later that Ransom discovered how to deal with these sudden losses of confidence. They arose when the rationality of the hross tempted you to think of it as a man. Then it became abominable—a man seven feet high, with a snaky body, covered, face and all, with thick black animal hair, and whiskered like a cat. But starting from the other end you had an animal with everything an animal ought to have—glossy coat, liquid eye, sweet breath and whitest teeth—and added to all these, as though Paradise had never been lost and earliest dreams were true, the charm of speech and reason. Nothing could be more disgusting than the one impression; nothing more delightful than the other. It all depended on the point of view.

— C. S. Lewis, Out of the Silent Planet, end of chapter 9

Awards

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Your comments on the Height template RfC were very helpful and insightful. Thank you for your participation there. Gigs (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your edit on the George Kline article. Memory eternal to someone who showed absolute respect, compassion and sympathy for the East. LoveMonkey 18:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Precious

Eastern Christianity
Thank you, baritone operating from a well-organized sandbox on a background of scientific math, music and computing, for quality contributions to articles such as Atonement in_Christianity and Samaritan woman at the well, for exteme humility, for detailed patient explanation, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Have a nice day my Orthodox brother Sιgε |д･) 12:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)