My "Angel of the Storm" painting is meteorologically correct. That is, the cloud formations and phenomena depicted therein are all well-documented atmospheric features. I have at least three types of storm clouds: the Cumulus congestus big pile of clouds over a growing storm, the incus anvil-shaped thundercloud, and the rounded bulbs of Cumulonimbus mammatus clouds which appear during severe thunderstorms. I depict cloud-to-cloud and cloud-to-ground lightning. And at the bottom, there is a tornado, probably an F2 or F3 strength twister. The colors I use for my various storm elements are also realistically depicted results of light refraction and filtering through clouds of different thicknesses. I also have suggestions of both hail and rain.

So far, so good. But I also have an angel in the picture. Why would I put an angel in the picture? Angels don't exist, according to scientists. They say there can be no conscious living being without a physical body to support consciousness. References in sacred texts and mythology are not evidence at all, merely the illusory beliefs of people who are following evolutionary adaptations that have ceased to be any value in an age of technology and scientific inquiry. Why would I spoil a well-rendered and accurate picture of stormy weather with a religious figure? Am I endorsing Creationism by implying that storms happen not because of atmospheric temperature differences and lots of airborne moisture, but because an angel makes it so?

The Scientists continue: Suppose for some absurd minute, that angel really existed. How would it get airborne? Is it lighter than air? If it is not made of gas but is rather a kind of flying mammal, where is the structure that could support such large wings? It is also playing a harp. If the angel is lighter than air in order to float, how could it carry with it a heavy object such as a wood and metal harp? The angel appears humanoid, but we know well that there have never been any humans with wings, unless they are costumed performers, who would definitely not be able to fly, let alone fly into a thunderstorm. Perhaps this "angel" is a performer who is doing a stunt in front of a video screen? Or perhaps it is a cleverly contrived computer-generated animation? No, this is an acrylic painting on a simple panel. It is a cultural object.

Nevertheless, cultural objects are not free from the rigors of scientific investigation. Let us consider what message is being conveyed by a painting of an angel playing its (her?) colorful harp in the midst of a raging storm. The artist must believe in some form of religion which she wishes to promote. We scientists know that religion of all kinds is a sad and mind-destroying meme which we desperately hope humanity will eventually outgrow. How much destruction and atrocity has been done by people who believe in angels! Religion is far more destructive than tornadoes and hurricanes! We can only hope that the artist will see the error of her ways and purge her art of all but properly documented, peer-reviewed, experimentally verifiable image material which can serve to enlighten people about the value of science rather than delude them with the beauty of angels.

Posted at 3:07 am | link