Hello

I am your mind giving you someone to talk to
Hello...

Dr Zhivago published in Russian by the CIA

Click here.

Fundamentalism

We keep trying to explain away American fundamentalism. Those of us not engaged personally or emotionally in the biggest political and cultural movement of our times—those on the sidelines of history—keep trying to come up with theories with which to discredit the evident allure of this punishing yet oddly comforting idea of a deity, this strange god. His invisible hand is everywhere, say His citizen-theologians, caressing and fixing every outcome: Little League games, job searches, test scores, the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, the success or failure of terrorist attacks (also known as “signs”), victory or defeat in battle, at the ballot box, in bed. Those unable to feel His soothing touch at moments such as these snort at the notion of a god with the patience or the prurience to monitor every tick and twitch of desire, a supreme being able to make a lion and a lamb cuddle but unable to abide two men kissing. A divine love that speaks through hurricanes. Who would worship such a god? His followers must be dupes, or saps, or fools, their faith illiterate, insane, or misinformed, their strength fleeting, hollow, an aberration. A burp in American history. An unpleasant odor that will pass.

Even the inexorable facts of math are subject to His decree, as explained in homeschooling texts such as Mathematics: Is God Silent? Two plus two is four because God says so. If He chose, it could just as easily be five.

Interesting... that's exactly what Descartes, the great rationalist and founder of modern philosophy, said. Hmm.

The dupes, the saps, and the fools—the believers—prefer their re-enchanted past, alive to the dark magic with which all histories are constructed. For them America’s past merely charts God’s love, its meanings revealed to His key men, presidents and generals, preachers and a goy with a shofar. The rest of us are simply not part of the dream. Fundamentalism is writing us out of history.

Read the whole article here.

Should philosophers be more like scientists?

Is philosophy progressive?

I like butterflies

My favourite colour is blue.

And I love Polish Chocolate Walnut cake, which technically should be called Russian Chocolate Walnut cake, because the recipe came from Russia, though it passed into our family through Poland. I'm going to continue calling it Polish Chocolate Walnut cake, even though my brother insists on calling it Russian Chocolate Walnut Cake, because that's what it was always called and I think it recalls the anecdote about how we got the recipe quite nicely.

It's very, very, VERY good cake! Especially when my mum cooks it!

Angels for Hope

This is a sweet idea.

Hat tip: Daily Candy

Very interesting

Sydney Anglican Heretics.

See also the comments on Craig's post here.

More on religion and politics

This Government never has, never would and, in my view, never should adopt any policy because of religious arguments. Governments, unlike individuals, cannot act on the basis of faith, only reason. The difference between the Government and many of its critics is that its senior members think that the values of the Ten Commandments are as much common sense as religious dogma.

Read more here.

Do you like butterflies?

Grown-ups love figures. When you describe a new friend to them, they never ask you about the important things. They never say: 'What's his voice like? What are his favourite games? Does he collect butterflies?' Instead they demand: 'How old is he? How many brothers has he? How much does he weigh? How much does his father earn?' Only then do they feel they know him. If you say to the grown-ups: 'I've seen a lovely house made of pink brick, with geraniums in the windows and doves on the roof', they are unable to picture such a house. You must say: 'I saw a house that cost a hundred thousand francs.' Then they cry out: 'Oh, how pretty!'

Antoine de Saint-Exupery, The Little Prince

I am deeply indebted to my dear brother Tim for reminding me of this passage at Christmas.

See also Byron's post on Dickens on Butterflies.

FYI

Strike a match.

When is abortion racism?

An intense sermon from John Piper.

Simply Christian

Christian faith is not a general religious awareness. Nor is it the ability to believe several unlikely propositions. It is certainly not a kind of gullibility which would put us out of touch with any genuine reality. It is the faith which hears the story of Jesus, including the announcement that he is the world's true Lord, and responds from the heart with a surge of grateful love that says: "Yes. Jesus is Lord. He died for my sins. God raised him from the dead. This is the centre of everything." Whether you come to this faith in a blinding flash or by a long, slow, winding route, once you get to this point you are (whether you realize it or not) wearing the badge which marks you out as part of the church, on an equal footing with every other Christian who has ever lived. You are discovering what it means to wake up and find yourself in God's new world. [179]

Made for spirituality, we wallow in introspection. Made for joy, we settle for pleasure. Made for justice, we clamour for vengeance. Made for relationship, we insist on our own way. Made for beauty, we are satisfied with sentiment. But new creation has already begun. The sun has begun to rise. Christians are called to leave behind, in the tomb of Jesus Christ, all that belongs to the brokenness and incompleteness of the present world. It is time, in the power of the Spirit, to take up our proper role, our fully human role, as agents, heralds and stewards of the new day that is dawning. That, quite simply, is what it means to be Christian, to follow Jesus Christ into the new world, God's new world, which he has thrown open before us. [202]

Tom Wright, Simply Christian, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London, 2006.

Top 25

The top 25 most played songs in my iTunes library as of today - ranging from 39 plays down to 18.

1. We're Coming Home - Rogue Traders
2. Black Fingernails, Red Wine - Eskimo Joe
3. Together in Electric Dreams - The Human League
4. Revolution - The Veronicas
5. Come On Come On - Little Birdy
6. (Can't Get My) Head Around You - The Offspring
7. Ain't No Other Man - Christina Aguilera
8. Not Ready to Make Nice - Dixie Chicks
9. Throw Your Arms Around Me - Hunters & Collectors
10. Prisoner of Society - The Living End
11. How You Remind Me - Nickelback
12. Nothing At All - Kasey Chambers
13. Did It Again - Kylie Minogue
14. Miss Independent - Kelly Clarkson
15. The Ship Song - Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds
16. Joker and the Thief - Wolfmother
17. Times Like These - Foo Fighters
18. Tonic - Pete Murray
19. Don't U Eva - Sarah Blasko
20. Mystery - Brooke Fraser
21. Are You Gonna Be My Girl - JET
22. This Is How It Goes - Missy Higgins
23. Amazing - Alex Lloyd
24. You Give Me Something - James Morrison
25. (Baby I've Got You) On My Mind – Powderfinger

I think this gives a nice indication of the range of my taste in music! Just keep in mind that this is only over the last 4 or 5 months that I've had my new laptop. Interesting... all but 7 of these were bought from the iTunes music store. That's a dangerous place...

Christianity in a Democracy

My brother Tim has a new blog called Christianity in a Democracy.

I recommend that you check it out.

(Nick, maybe you can argue some more with Tim over there!!)

I find it interesting that the link to this blog from Tim's other blog is the first in a list of "interesting blogs."

Strange

Thanks to my brother's influence, I have started using Google Analytics. According to the pie chart which analyses visits by source, one visitor last Friday came via the San Francisco Giants Blog.

I'm not sure how that works.

It's almost here!

My DVDs of Alias Season 5 should arrive from Amazon any day now...

The question is, do I watch them straight away, or do I watch the first four seasons again first, in order to appreciate the full impact of the final season??

Singstar

So 1, 2, 3, take my hand and come with me because you look so fine and I really wanna make you mine.
(Insert air guitar here)

I say you look so fine that I really wanna make you mine.
(More air guitar here)



(Yes, that's me underneath the hair!!)

Happy Birthday Pierre Gassendi!

On this day in 1592, Pierre Gassendi was born at Champtercier, near Digne, in France.

Gassendi was a mathematician, natural philosopher and theologian, most notable for his efforts in reviving and Christianising Epicurean atomism as an alternative to Aristotelianism. He was also a correspondent of Marin Mersenne - the postbox of the time - and of Rene Descartes. He wrote several objections to Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy.

Barry Brundell, the Catholic priest/historian of science famous for impersonating the Pope and Cardinal Bellarmine in retrials of Galileo at UNSW, is an expert on Gassendi. He told me once about how he ended up as such. He said that he had an idea of the kind of argument he wanted to make in his PhD thesis, and the time period he was interested in. He didn't want to focus on anyone who had already been done to death by other historians, so he went searching through a library card catalogue (yes, it was back in those days) and came across Gassendi. Right time period, fitted the argument, had been neglected by historians... perfect! Ah, the wonders of academic research!

Happy Birthday Sir Francis Bacon!

On this day in 1561, Francis Bacon was born at York House in the Strand, London.

I would imagine that most people have at least heard of Francis Bacon. My first encounter with the name was as a young child listening to the hilarious Rinse the Blood Off My Toga by Wayne and Schuster - "with apologies to William Shakespeare... and Sir Francis Bacon, just in case." I laughed, of course, even though I didn't understand the joke!

My second encounter with Francis Bacon would have been an early History and Philosophy of Science class, most probably as the founder of the "scientific method."

I'm not too interested in "scientific method" - far too much influence from post-Kuhnian sociologists of science. My interest in Bacon lies in his thoughts on nature and religion.

The main point of my PhD thesis is to provide a re-interpretation or re-evaluation of natural theology - pointing out that it's a more complicated enterprise than historians have usually given it credit for, and suggesting a way forward for understanding it in all its complexities. (So really there is no 'it', but that's a topic for another time...)

One thing I've been struggling with is understanding what people actually meant by "natural" theology or "natural" religion. I'm not convinced that it's always framed in opposition to "revealed" religion or Scriptural theology. So, I was quite excited on the weekend when I finaly started reading Peter Harrison's 'Religion' and the religions in the English Enlightenment. The first chapter begins with a discussion of the various meanings of the term "nature" in the 17th and 18th centuries, reflected in different views on natural religion. For the Reformers, Harrison suggests, "natural" stood in stark contrast to "supernatural" and hence "natural religion" was a result of human sin, and was opposed to "revealed religion." For Francis Bacon, however, this opposition was invalid. Harrison quotes Bacon on the two senses of the "light of nature":

The one, that which springeth from reason, sense, induction, argument, according to the laws of heaven and earth; the other, that which is imprinted upon the spirit of man by an inward instinct, according to the law of conscience, which is a sparkle of purity of his first estate; in which the latter sense only he is participant of some light and discerning touching the perfection of the moral law.

That is, Bacon is using "natural" in the sense of something inherent to a person - not opposed to supernatural, since it is endowed by God. The Cambridge Platonists (still no action figures) adopted this use of natural reason, particularly evident in their favourite catchphrase - reason is "the Candle of the Lord" - derived from Proverbs 20:27. But again, that's a topic for another post.

In the near future, I'll try to write more about the Cambridge Platonists and the Candle of the Lord, and about the Reformers' views on nature and the supernatural. I'm intrigued by their dichtomy. But for the moment, suffice it to say, Happy Birthday Francis Bacon!


This is the second post in my series commemorating the birthdays of particular thinkers who I deem worthy of such an honour. (Actually, the thinkers are chosen from the Philosophers' Birthdays calendar I've subscribed to in iCal.) The first in this series was for Dr Samuel Clarke.

Reason and Religion

The role of reason in religion is a major theme in my research. As I read about attempts to solve 17th-century doctrinal conflict by appealing to reason, I can't help but think of our own society - appeals to tolerance, reasonableness, and a rejection of dogma; the view that all religions basically agree on the main points and that the details are not important; the conviction that the way a person lives is more important than what they believe.

Here is a quote from the article I'm currently reading, referring to attempts to find a middle ground between Anglicanism and Puritanism:

Through reason it was hoped that men might be induced to mitigate their stress on points of minor importance, tolerate the lesser differences of opinion, and come together on the great essentials concerning which there could be no reasonable doubt.1

Sounds good in theory, but who decides which points are of minor importance? How do we judge which differences of opinion to tolerate and which we should stand up against? What are the "great essentials" and how do we define "reasonable doubt"? And how did they ever think they could convince Puritans of the value of reason when Puritans thought it had been corrupted by the Fall?!

Hmm. Hopefully I'll have it figured out by the end of the year.

1. Sterling P. Lamprecht, “Innate Ideas in the Cambridge Platonists,” The Philosophical Review 35:6 (1926), 553-573.

A Deadly Certitude

Steven Weinberg's review of Dawkins.

Le Grand Content

Thanks to Tim.

Am I a heretic?

I'm reading an article at the moment on the Cambridge Platonist Henry More (I still haven't found that action figure, by the way). The author, John Henry, writes that one of More's motivations for developing his concept of the soul was to defeat (or convert) mortalists. Henry writes:

As is well know mortalism was an extremely prevalent heterodoxy in seventeenth-century England, and Henry More frequently wrote against it. Mortalists responded to the problem of soul-body interaction by taking a monistic view of the person. On death the person was held to lie 'asleep' in the grave until the general Resurrection on the Last Day. At the Resurrection, it was held, the whole person (body and soul, if they can be meaningfully distinguished) would be resuscitated by God.

I don't think the Bible tells us enough about this topic to make any absolute pronouncements, but I've thought for a while that this viewpoint makes sense and seems to fit with what the Bible does say. Except for the "resuscitation" bit. We will have a new body, not the old one pacthed up a bit. I think.

I've read about mortalism (also known as psychopannychism) before in an article about Isaac Newton, who apparently held this view. The other author (James Force, I think, or Richard Popkin) called it a "heresy." So... am I a heretic??

Past the 200 mark...

Very exciting.

Zadie Smith on writing and reading

A novel is a two-way street, in which the labour required on either side is, in the end, equal. Reading, done properly, is every bit as tough as writing - I really believe that. As for those people who align reading with the essentially passive experience of watching television, they only wish to debase reading and readers. The more accurate analogy is that of the amateur musician placing her sheet music on the stand and preparing to play. She must use her own, hard-won, skills to play this piece of music. The greater the skill, the greater the gift she gives the composer and the composer gives her.

Read the whole article here.

Very scary

I don't know what's more disturbing: that some Muslims can respond with such violence to suggestions that their religion is violent, or that academic opinion is being censored to such a degree in a country like France.

Click here.

The truth is out there... and so are owls

Click here.

The Thrill of the Chaste

A very open and honest article from the UK Sunday Times. There should be more articles like this in the secular media.

Religion and politics

I recently received an email from Agnes, a friend from Iceland. She wrote:

There's a huge, ugly and public debate going on here about the fact that we have a national church and the two most vocal sides are getting really ugly. They're the hard-line right-wing Christians and the hard-line atheists. While I'm inclined to think that it's wrong for a democratic state to lend more financial support to one religion over the others and to give it's teachings prominence in elementary school religious classes I'm sad that the only voices heard in this debate are the loud rude ones. All they do is insult other peoples' choices, and thinking back on our conversations, I know it doesn't have to be that way. It's also ridiculous when you think about the ideology of each group: the Christians preach forgiveness and love thy neighbor while the atheists argue for freedom of choice and tolerance - none of this is apparent in the insults the groups are trading in the media : )

I just replied with some thoughts of my own about the issue, and figured I may as well post them here too. Maybe someone will have some comments to offer. My opinions are not very well researched or thought out (yet), so I would love to hear what others think.

Have a look also at my brother's new blog: Christianity in a Democracy.
---

That's a shame about the ugly debate going on in Iceland (though it's nice that it is making you think about me!) Extreme views always seem to get the most media attention - not just because the people are loud and rude, but because it's controversial and it sells. It's sad that people have to stereotype others into such black-and-white groups without realising that there is a range of opinion and a lot of room for understanding and perhaps compromise.

The separation of Church and State is an issue that arises in Australia from time to time as well. The separation is not enshrined in the Constitution like it is in America, but we don't have a national church. It was a big issue in the US because the founders escaped religious persecution in England because they didn't conform to the Established Church - hence, religious freedom was extremely important to them. It wasn't as much of an issue in Australia, though I'm not sure of the detailed history.

I don't think a national, state-established church is a good idea. I don't think it's the job of an elected government to legislate religious belief or practice. However, I do get annoyed at people who misuse the concept. It often gets trotted out when politicians have the nerve to express an opinion drawn from their religious beliefs. "We have a separation of church and state!" is the cry from secularists. Well, we don't have an established church, but that doesn't mean that politicians can't be religious. The separation of church and state means the absence of a state-sponsored church, not the absence of religious belief among the members of the government. Every politician has an ideology, worldview or over-arching belief system that guides their thinking. Why should religion be specifically excluded?

There was an interesting opinion piece in the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday. Emily Maguire (an author whose recent book I really enjoyed) is complaining about Kevin Rudd (recently elected leader of the federal Labor party) and his religious opinions. The only arguments she deals with explicitly, however, are from Tony Abbott and John Anderson, both right-wing politicians. One paragraph worth quoting:

Rudd is on a self-declared mission to reclaim Christianity from the right, which would be fine if he were the elected leader of a Christian organisation. As leader of a secular party and potential leader of our nation he should be talking about the values that unite those on the left, not the specific faith from which some of them derive these values. Why create a chasm between those who are working for essentially the same end: a more just and compassionate world? Why emphasise your religious faith - something that separates you from others with the same goal - when you could be emphasising your commitment to social justice?

I don't see why one can't do both. In fact, I'm fairly sure that what Rudd means by "reclaiming Christianity from the right" involves an emphasis on social justice (an aspect of Christianity sometimes overlooked by more right-leaning people). Why can't Rudd emphasise social justice as an outworking of his religious beliefs? A Christian can work alongside a Muslim or a Jew or an atheist to achieve social justice, while acknowledging that the reasons behind doing so may be different. Differences don't have to divide. Besides, Rudd was elected by people who presumably knew what he stood for - he's never made a secret of it.

The Joyce of Science

It's amazing what people come up with. From a discussion on an email list for the history of the philosophy of science:

Counter-examples to Kuhn. I've deleted the original email, but here are a few highlights, the first three being from Steve Fuller:

With all due respect to Paul [Hoyningen-Huene, who proposed the original question], the main problem with Kuhn's model is that it's not clear that it was designed to be tested in some straightforward empirical manner... So, good luck cherry-picking the history of science to keep Kuhn alive! Yours in discourse...

A question about Merton drew this response:

Merton definitely has 'wit': he knows how to mark some thing brilliantly, and the systematic v. historical approach to a science (drawn from theology) is a good example. The more historical the approach to a science, the more critical you're likely to be of how much present has made over the past. In contrast, the systematic approach tends to make it look like everyone is contributing pieces to the same puzzle. Kuhn, in his uncanny vagueness, straddled this, and you can see historians and philosophers of science trying to draw him in one or the other direction. Paul Hoyningen-Huene would like to enable Kuhn to out-Kant Kant; others think time is better spent elsewhere.

Some more references to Merton, Sorokin and Myerson, then:

Are we in Finnegan's Wake country, here? Merton + Sorokin = Meyerson?

After 20 more emails in less than 24 hours (these "Hopoi" are rather hyperactive):

It is Finnegans Wake, as even people
know who haven't read it but have
only glanced at the title.

F.A. Muller
Amsterdam

(Too many syllables, but otherwise it looks like a haiku!)

And then this (from Jon Bennett), including a fascinating link:

What better example of a parallelism of ideas in science and literature than Finnegan's Wake - indicating a larger cultural metaparadigm - unless it would be the other works of Joyce. Proust is a good example of Einstein's ideas applied to literature. Here is a popular discussion of Joyce and science.

I just think it's amazing what people come up with. And I feel so inadequate. I barely finished The Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man!

No willpower

I have no willpower. None at all. I'm supposed to be cutting back on "extra-curricular" activities this year - writing my thesis should be top priority. But I just couldn't resist. I came back from my holiday in Canberra to find a letter from Moore College regarding the evening course this year. While I had decided not to take any subjects this year, I didn't see any harm in seeing which subjects were offered at Miranda this year. Big mistake. Term 1 - Romans.

ROMANS!!

My favourite book of the Bible! The subject I've been waiting for, and with the four-year cycle and not knowing what I'll be doing for the next few years, I might not get another chance! So I've filled in the form already and will be sending it off tomorrow.

It's only 8 weeks. It finishes by the end of March, and I won't do any other subjects this year (Acts and Paul is tempting, but I'll likely be overseas for the first few weeks, and The Christian Life and Australian Christianity can wait) so surely it can't be too bad!

Hmm. It's going to be an interesting year!

I need to vent...

A more detailed and careful critique of Dawkins will be on its way when I've finished the book, but for now, I just need to vent a little. I'm up to chapter 7, page 243 (over half way!) and for the first time, I really would have thrown the book across the room, except that it cost me $31.50 and I don't want to damage it (at this point I'd like to include a comment from my Jesuit friend: "I've read unfavorable reviews of Dawkins, but would like to read it - however I can't see giving him any more money").

So, I'm getting fed up with Dawkins. I don't know why I get so worked up (breathe in... breathe out... breathe in... breathe out...). It's not that I'm offended as such. He's not actually attacking anything I believe, though he is claiming to. He is trying to discredit the whole of religion by attacking a few examples, and he picks the easy targets, ignoring anything that might give his argument some trouble. So, US conservatives and TV evangelists become typical of evangelicals, while Dawkins only acknowledges as "sophisticated", "reflective", or "advanced" thinkers people like Bishop Spong and those whose beliefs barely resemble Christianity.

While ultra-conservatives, "Christians" who write hate letters and bomb abortion clinics, and people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson could be typical of Christianity in America (I don't have the numbers, but I'm not convinced), and while watered-down liberal theology may be typical of the Church of England or Episcopal Church in some parts of the world (also not convinced), there are many, many intelligent, reflective and sophisticated thinkers who have considered the issues that Dawkins raises against Christianity, and have some (but not all) answers. Does Dawkins genuinely believe that all Christians are either stupid or barely believers? Does he really think that we haven't considered issues such as the problem of evil or the historical origin of the biblical documents?

I'm not offended, because Dawkins is rejecting as Christianity something that I would also reject as Christianity. However, this is part of his larger project of eliminating all religion, and he is attempting to achieve this by knocking down a straw man and (though I can't comment on his intentions) assuming that his readers won't know the difference.

More on this in a week or so. Right now, I'm going to go to bed, finish my cup of tea, read some Tom Wright, get an early night, and perhaps in the morning I'll feel up to reading some more Dawkins!

Breathe in... breathe out... breathe in... breathe out...

What are deer pants?

I was playing some church songs on the piano this evening, and I was reminded of an old chorus we sang at church when I was a kid - "As the deer pants for the water so my soul longs after you; You alone are my heart's desire and I long to worship you." I used to always wonder what deer pants were.

November and December 2006

Books bought:

• Nick Hornby, The Complete Polysyllabic Spree
• Mark Tredennick, The Little Red Writing Book
• Jasper Fforde, The Big Over Easy
• Robert Harris, Enigma
• Robert Harris, Imperium
• Susanna Gregory, A Masterly Murder
• Alister McGrath, The Twilight of Atheism
• Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
• Richard Dawkins, A Devil's Chaplain
• Katharine McMahon, The Alchemist's Daughter
• Edward O. Wilson (ed.), From So Simple A Beginning: The Four Great Books of Charles Darwin
• Janet Browne, Darwin's Origin of Species: A Biography

Books read:

• Nick Hornby, The Complete Polysyllabic Spree
• Alister McGrath, The Twilight of Atheism
• Jasper Fforde, The Big Over Easy
• Katharine McMahon, The Alchemist's Daughter
• Emily Maguire, The Gospel According to Luke
• Vashti Farrer, Plagues and Federation: The Diary of Kitty Barnes

After reading Hornby's The Complete Polysyllabic Spree, I was inspired to change slightly the format of these posts. I've enjoyed Hornby's novels (I've read all except Fever Pitch), and I'm also interested in reading what other people say about the books they've read. Last Christmas, my parents bought me a book called Classics: Books for Life, by Jane Gleeson-White. It contains short essays on 62 classic books, from Homer's Iliad to Ulysses by James Joyce to Salman Rushdie's Midnight's Children. I'm aiming to read them all (well, unless there are any that sound particularly unenjoyable) at some point. I've also thought about buying 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die, but 62 books seems much more achieveable.

The Complete Polysyllabic Spree is a month-by-month account of what Hornby has bought and read, with a few complaints about his fictionalised editorial team (the Polysyllabic Spree) along the way. I was encouraged to know that I am not the only person who buys more books than I read. I don't buy books to read straight away. I like building up my personal library. I love lying in bed looking at my overpacked bookshelves, thinking about the books I've enjoyed in the past and wondering what to read next. I enjoy not needing to go out to buy a new book when I've just finished one - I just need to peruse my bookshelves and choose something.

My postgraduate study involves so much reading that once I get home of an evening, all I really have enough mental energy to do is flake out in front of the tv. So, I'm relishing being on holidays and being able to read as much as I want to - and to read books that are not related to my PhD! I'm also loving Borders' email updates - "The Shortlist" - and especially the "buy four books, get 40% off" vouchers that appear from time to time. Last week I decided to stock up on novels for my holiday - the next in Susanna Gregory's Matthew Bartholemew books, and a couple of Robert Harris novels - Enigma, because I enjoyed the movie, and Imperium, because it has Cicero in it. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the third Thursday Next book, so I got The Big Over Easy instead.

I spotted The Alchemist's Daughter in Berkelouw's, and was convinced by the phrase "natural philosophy" and the year 1725 on the back cover. It was going well for 50 pages or so, took a down turn, but then picked up again, and I ended up really enjoying it. I had a nice reading binge last week. I started The Alchemist's Daughter on Wednesday night before bed, and finished it on Thursday afternoon. Thursday evening I picked up The Gospel According to Luke, given to me for Christmas by my parents, at around 8:30pm. I couldn't put it down, and I finished it by midnight. Quite an amazing book - the central theme I guess was the difficulties of being attracted to someone who has completely contrary beliefs. Or maybe loving someone you know you cant have because your beliefs forbid it. Putting it like that reminds me of Jane Eyre, one of my favourite books and characters, though her response was much different.

At the moment I'm also about half-way through Dawkins' The God Delusion. Amazingly, it wasn't until page 5 that I wanted to throw the book across the room. I've already thought up the title for my critique... but I'm not going to reveal that yet!! I mentioned previously that I'd read Alister McGrath's critique of Dawkins. So far, everything he said has seemed very reasonable! Dawkins makes a brief mention of McGrath in The God Delusion, and shows that he hasn't understood the critique. McGrath is a fantastic writer. I also enjoyed The Twilight of Atheism. He traces the history of atheism from the Enlightenment, considering its connections with various social and political events and movements. It's intriguing to read alongside Dawkins. Dawkins wants to eliminate religion all together, but he doesn't say how (except that he things all thinking people should be convinced by his book). McGrath shows that any attempts at wholescale conversion to atheism have been accompanied by violence, which is just the thing Dawkins criticises religion for. I wonder what his plan is?

Plagues and Federation is a kids book that my mum suggested I read. I suppose my education was very poor in that I didn't know there was an outbreak of bubonic plague in The Rocks in 1900. It was a decent enough book, but not that exciting. It was written as a diary of a teenage girl growing up in The Rocks, dealing with the plague, financial hardship, her brother going to war and falling for the boy next door. Cute, and I suppose it would give kids some idea of what it was like to live in Sydney 100 years ago, but I'm not sure it would do much else. Oh well. I suppose books are for entertainment and don't always have to educate, but I get irritated reading people who can't write, even if it's intentional!

At the moment I'm in the middle of an Amir Aczel book about Descartes' Secret Notebook, a Susannah Gregory novel, Tom Wright's Simply Christian and Robert Harris' Imperium. Also on the list for the near future are more Michael Ruse, some books about history and finishing off Dawkins.