Dawkins on Religion

See the full article here.

Some choice quotes picked out by Nick:

Everybody nowadays is an atheist about Thor and Apollo. Some of us just go one god further.

The status of atheists in America today is on a par with that of homosexuals fifty years ago.

The moderate, sensible religious people you've cited make the world safe for the extremists by bringing up children -- sometimes even indoctrinating children -- to believe that faith trumps everything and by influencing society to respect faith.

To teach children that it is a fact that there is one god or that God created the world in six days, that is child abuse.

Or check out a rational, reasoned, rhetoric-free perspective from Tim MacBride, the greatest of all Baptist preachers, here.

Pragmatism

Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.
- Richard Feynman

Feynman missed the point entirely, of course. Physics is about as useful to electrons as ornithology is to birds, too.
- Bill Vanderburgh
Wichita State University

And may I add, the philosophy of Chinese medicine is about as useful to the the ontology of the Qi, yin and yang and the five elements, as science (broadly defined as a body of knowledge) is to nature and vice-versa.
- Rey Tiquia Ph.D.
Independent Scholar/Practitioner
Traditional Chinese Medicine
Doctors for the Environment, Australia
Melbourne, Australia

Australian Music Compilations

The final lists - the first in some kind of order that makes sense in my mind; the second in chronological order.

Classic Aussie Anthems

• Great Southern Land - Icehouse
• Sounds Of Then (This Is Australia) - Ganggajang
• Solid Rock - Goanna
• Down Under - Men At Work
• Original Sin - INXS
• Beds Are Burning - Midnight Oil
• Djapana - Yothu Yindi
• Under the Milky Way - The Church
• Live It Up - Mental As Anything
• Throw Your Arms Around Me - Hunters & Collectors
• Where The Wild Roses Grow - Kylie Minogue & Nick Cave
• Gough - The Whitlams
• From St Kilda To Kings Cross - Paul Kelly
• Khe Sanh - Cold Chisel
• Pub With No Beer - Slim Dusty
• Tie Me Kangaroo Down Sport - Rolf Harris
• Home Among The Gum Trees - John Williamson
• Waltzing Matilda - Slim Dusty
• Advance Australia Fair - John Williamson
• I Am Australian - The Seekers

Selections from the last decade:

• Did it Again - Kylie Minogue (1997)
• Polyester Girl - Regurgitator (1997)
• Girls Like That (Don't Go For Guys Like Us) - Custard (1998)
• Prisoner of Society - The Living End (1998)
• You Gotta Love This City - The Whitlams (1999)
• Wier - Killing Heidi (2001)
• Not Pretty Enough - Kasey Chambers (2001)
• Amazing - Alex Lloyd (2001)
• Three Dimensions - Something For Kate (2001)
• Without You - Silverchair (2002)
• Are You Gonna Be My Girl - JET (2003)
• (Baby I've Got You) On My Mind - Powderfinger (2003)
• Beautiful to Me - Little Birdy (2003)
• Tonic - Pete Murray (2004)
• Don't U Eva - Sarah Blasko (2004)
• Hey Hey Baby - Spazzys (2004)
• Emancipate Myself - Thirsty Merc (2004)
• This Is How It Goes - Missy Higgins (2004)
• We're Coming Home - Rogue Traders (2005)
• Black Fingernails, Red Wine - Eskimo Joe (2006)

Is there anything incredibly important that I've missed??

Incarnation

He it is by whom all things were made, and who was made one of all things; who is the revealer of the Father, the creator of the Mother; the Son of God by the Father without a mother, the Son of man by the Mother without a father; the Word who is God before all time, the Word made flesh at a fitting time, the maker of the sun, made under the sun; ordering all the ages from the bosom of the Father, hallowing a day of today from the womb of the Mother; remaining in the former, coming forth from the latter; author of the heaven and the earth, sprung under the heaven out of the earth; unutterably wise, in His wisdom a babe without utterance; filling the world, lying in a manger.

Augustine

Book I read in September 2006

Only one book this month. :-(

John Gribbin, The Fellowship: The Story of a Revolution, Penguin, 2006.

And it wasn't even a great book. Rather disappointing, actually. Well, I suppose I shouldn't have expected much. I saw this book when it came out in hardback last year, but was put off by the sensationalist title, typical of a particularly bad type of popular history of science title. But since I was starting to look at natural theology written by early members of the Royal Society of London, I thought I should give it a read. Fortunately, I found it in paperback, so I didn't have to fork out nearly $50 for it.

John Gribbin is a very popular popular science writer, and I have a couple of his books - In Search of Schrodinger's Cat and In Search of the Big Bang - but I haven't actually read those yet... Perhaps he writes fantastic popular science, and if he makes complicated concepts accessible to the general public - people such as myself for whom quantum physics is fascinating but out of reach - then that's all good. But his history of science is not very good. Very Whiggish, in fact.

I was particularly struck by this quote, on p. 13 of the Introduction:

Galileo... would not have called himself a scientist, nor used the word 'science', which wasn't coined until the nineteenth century. It stems from the Latin scientia, meaning 'knowledge'; a term which Galileo and his contemporaries would have been thoroughly familiar with, although in a much broader context than our science. They would have regarded themselves as natural philosophers, the heirs to Greeks such as Pythagoras and Aristotle. But as the old saying goes, if it looks like a duck, flies like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. In modern terminology, the people who are the subjects of this book were scientists, and what they did was science; only the saddest pedant would object to my use of the word science in this context.

Well, I guess I'm the saddest pedant then. Though, perhaps I don't object to his use of the word 'science' as much as his uncritical use of the word 'science'. Perhaps there was a reason that Galileo and others regarded themselves as natural philosophers - in Galileo's case, philosophers were paid more than mathematicians! And the word 'science' was used before the 19th century. Even Thomas Aquinas, for example, regarded theology as 'the Queen of the sciences.' But 'sciences' were not 'natural philosophy'. Galileo worked on mathematical sciences such as astronomy and mechanics, but these weren't natural philosophy. Descartes worked on sciences such as optics, but his natural philosophy was different. Not much hope for the history of science if we can't even figure out what it is we are studying!!!

Grr.

Baptists vs Calvinists

All these labels and disputes are driving me crazy!

Baptist Battles Against Calvinism

Happy Birthday Dr Clarke!

On this day in 1675 Samuel Clarke was born at Norwich, England.

Who is Samuel Clarke? I'm glad you asked!

Samuel Clarke was a theologian and natural philosopher, particularly well-known for his interest in Isaac Newton's work. My interest in Clarke lies primarily in the Boyle Lectures he presented in 1704 and 1705, A Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God, the Unchangeable Obligations of Natural Religion, and the Truth and Certainty of the Christian Revelation.

Clarke was educated at the Norwich Free Grammar School (1685-90) and afterwards at Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge (10 points for the first person who can tell me which famous athlete was also educated at Caius!) At Cambridge, Clarke was noted for his encyclopaedic knowledge, "the range of his interests and his attempt to span all fields of knowledge in an age when science, and learning more generally, were increasingly becoming the province of the expert."

He was also one of the first people to understand Isaac Newton's famous Principia (Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, or, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy). At this time, even people who agreed with Newton's ideas still tended to based their teaching on Rene Descartes' natural philosophy, which was more accessible. Clarke's tutor at Caius, John Ellis, asked him to translate into Latin a popular French textbook of Cartesian natural philosophy by Jacques Rohault - Traite de physique - so it could be used by students at Cambridge. Clarke performed this task, but amended the text with a series of Newtonian footnotes, correcting all the Cartesian errors.

While Clarke achieved the status of one of the Church of England's leading theologians and metaphysicians with his Boyle lectures, he was a rather controversial figure. He opposed the high-church preoccupation with religious ritual, suggesting the relative insignificance of sacramental practices when compared with those imposed by the moral order. He also opposed Calvinism, placing a strong emphasis on the role of reason in religion. However, he held firmly to the Protestant belief of judging doctrine by scripture alone, though this, for Clarke, led to a rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Like Newton, Clarke was theologically heterodox. In 1712, he published his doubts about the full divinity of Christ in The Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity: Wherein Every Text in the New Testament relating to that Doctrine is Distinctly Considered. Clarke closely analysed some 1251 biblical texts and concluded that:

The Father Alone is Self-Existent, Underived, unoriginated, Independent

and that:

The Son is not self-existent; but derives his Being and All his Attributes From the Father, as from the Supreme Cause.

Interestingly, people who tried to persuade Clarke not to publish his work did so by appealing to his political loyalties. Clarke supported the Whig political order, and at a time when politics and religion were thoroughly intermingled, there were fears that Clarke's views could be used to damage the moral credibility of the party. However, in the face of theological dispute, Clarke agreed to modify the wording of his belief - a compromise that did not satisfy everyone, but avoided further conflict.

Samuel Clarke is perhaps most well known for his correspondence with the German philosophy Leibniz, in which he defended Isaac Newton against the charge that his work had contributed to a decline in natural religion in England - a claim that seems unusual in some ways, as Newton and his followers firmly believed that his natural philosophy supported the church. Clarke's work in this area won him the support of the Princess of Wales, Caroline of Ansbach. Caroline attempted to persuade Clarke to accept a bishopric, though he declined due to his heterodox beliefs on the Trinity. As John Gascoigne writes in his DNB article on Clarke,

Voltaire, who had met Clarke during his extended visit to England in the 1720s, later spread the unlikely but delightful story that the bishop of London had stopped Clarke's being made archbishop of Canterbury (on the death of Tenison in 1716) by telling the Queen, approvingly, that he thought Clarke was the best qualified man for the job, though he was not a Christian.

In his Boyle lectures, Samuel Clarke argued that "the being and attributes of God are not only possible or barely probably in themselves, but also strictly demonstrable to any unprejudiced mind from the most incontestable principles of right reason."

Note two key phrases here:

• "Unprejudiced mind" - if you reject these arguments, clearly you were prejudiced against the idea from the beginning
• "Incontestable principles of right reason" - I'm using my reason correctly; you are not.

One of the things I really like about writing from this period is how nasty they were to atheists. Clarke suggests that there are only three kinds of atheists:

• Atheists that are extremely stupid and ignorant, and have never made use of their natural reason to discover the plainest and most obvious truths
• Atheists that have had their reason corrupted by a vicious and degenerate life,
  
• "And instead of fairly and impartially enquiring into the rules and obligations of nature and the reasons and fitness of things, [they] have accustomed themselves only to mock and scoff at religion and, being under the power of evil habits and the slavery of unreasonable and indulged lusts, are resolved not to harken to any reasoning which would oblige them to forsake their beloved vices."
• Atheists who pretend that arguments against the being and attributes of God are strong and conclusive

Clarke claims that the third kind are the only ones who are capable of being reasoned with. And so he sets out to establish the existence and attributes of God by reason, but I won't go into all that because I'll be surprised if anyone has actually read this far! But I'll finish up with a quote from Clarke's conclusion (and when I get around to writing the Boyle Lecture chapter of my thesis next year, I might write more about this):

Yet the notices that God has bee pleased to give us of himself are so many and so obvious in the constitution, order, beauty, and harmony of the several parts of the world, in the frame and structure of our own bodies and the wonderful powers and faculties of our souls, in the unavoidable apprehensions of our own minds and the common consent of all other men, in everything within us and everything without us, that no man of the meanest capacity and greatest disadvantages whatsoever, with the slightest and most superficial observation of the works of God and the lowest and most obvious attendance to the reason of things, can be ignorant of him, but he must be utterly without excuse... [and God has provided] a clear and express revelation of himself in Christ suited to every capacity and understanding, [to] put to silence the ignorance of foolish and the vanity of sceptical and profane men... And so has infallibly furnished us with sufficient knowledge to enable us to perform our duty in this life, and to obtain our happiness in that which is to come.

Classic Aussie Music

I'm putting together a couple of compilation CDs of Australian music for an American friend. I'm open to suggestions, comments and advice on which songs are most characteristic of Australian music and culture. Here's what I have so far:

"Classic Aussie Anthems"

1. Khe Sanh - Cold Chisel
2. Sounds Of Then (This Is Australia) - Ganggajang
3. Solid Rock - Goanna
4. Holy Grail - Hunters & Collectors
5. Great Southern Land - Icehouse
6. Original Sin - INXS
7. Down Under Men At Work
8. Live It Up Mental As Anything
9. Beds Are Burning Midnight Oil
10. Dumb Things Paul Kelly
11. Waltzing Matilda Slim Dusty
12. Advance Australia Fair John Williamson
13. Home Among The Gum Trees John Williamson
14. Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport - Rolf Harris
15. I Am Australian - The Seekers
16. Djapana - Yothu Yindi

"Modern Aussie Classics"

1. Gough - The Whitlams
2. Brand New Day - Alex Lloyd
3. Girls Like That - Custard
4. Black Fingernails, Red Wine - Eskimo Joe
5. Are You Gonna Be My Girl - JET
6. Beautiful to Me - Little Birdy
7. Wier - Killing Heidi
8. Prisoner of Society - The Living End
9. Tonic - Pete Murray
10. (Baby I've Got You) On My Mind - Powderfinger
11. We're Coming Home - Rogue Traders
12. Don't U Eva - Sarah Blasko
13. Without You - Silverchair
14. Three Dimensions - Something For Kate
15. Hey Hey Baby - Spazzys
16. Emancipate Myself - Thirsty Merc
17. Something by Kylie Minogue - probably Where the Wild Roses Grow, with Nick Cave
18. Something by Crowded House, even though they're technically from New Zealand. This is a tricky one. So many fantastic songs! Which one is most "Australian"?
    

Other possibilities:

1. You're The Voice - John Farnham
2. What's My Scene - Hoodoo Gurus
3. Pub With No Beer - Slim Dusty
4. Something by You Am I?

Any thoughts?!?!

Psalm 121

1I lift up my eyes to the hills.
From where does my help come?
2My help comes from the LORD,
who made heaven and earth.

3He will not let your foot be moved;
he who keeps you will not slumber.
4Behold, he who keeps Israel
will neither slumber nor sleep.

5The LORD is your keeper;
the LORD is your shade on your right hand.
6The sun shall not strike you by day,
nor the moon by night.

7The LORD will keep you from all evil;
he will keep your life.
8The LORD will keep
your going out and your coming in
from this time forth and forevermore.

(Unless otherwise indicated, all biblical quotations on this blog are from the English Standard Version)

Coming up tulips

Calvinism and Reformed theology seems to be a big topic of discussion at the moment, e.g. this article from Christianity Today, "Young, Restless and Reformed," some posts about the five points of Calvinism on Craig's blog... There have been more discussions that I've come across, but I can't remember where they all are.

I've been meaning to post something about Calvinism for awhile - trying to figure out if I'm a Calvinist or not. I suspect I've been brought up in a Reformed tradition without explicit labels, so nothing in the CT article was that earth-shattering for me. But I did start thinking about it after a debate on free will and God's sovereignty with a Presbyterian philosopher of physics at Cambridge in July. I still haven't had a chance to think through this fully... Hopefully some thoughts will be forthcoming soon!

Great Are the LORD's Works!

Praise the LORD!
I will give thanks to the LORD with my whole heart,
in the company of the upright, in the congregation.
2Great are the works of the LORD,
studied by all who delight in them.
3Full of splendor and majesty is his work,
and his righteousness endures forever.
4He has caused his wondrous works to be remembered;
the LORD is gracious and merciful.
5He provides food for those who fear him;
he remembers his covenant forever.
6He has shown his people the power of his works,
in giving them the inheritance of the nations.
7The works of his hands are faithful and just;
all his precepts are trustworthy;
8they are established forever and ever,
to be performed with faithfulness and uprightness.
9He sent redemption to his people;
he has commanded his covenant forever.
Holy and awesome is his name!
10The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom;
all those who practice it have a good understanding.
His praise endures forever!

Just in case...

If anyone happens to be in the vicinity of UNSW next Tuesday evening (October 3, 5-6pm) I am giving a lecture at CASE on Natural Theology and Christian Apologetics. This is part of a weekly lecture series on Christianity and Contemporary Thought.

I was invited to join CASE this year as an 'emerging scholar', which is giving me the opportunity to explore the interactions between my faith and my academic work. This lecture is part of that. The idea is that I will be speaking about how my PhD research relates to Christianity. I'm not sure exactly what I'm saying yet - I still have to write the lecture!

Anyway, if you're around, I would love to see you there.

October 3
5-6pm
New College, Anzac Pde
Kensington

Just another manic Monday

I don't like Mondays. And I don't think I'm the only one...

Monday morning feels so bad
Everybody seems to nag me...
Monday I'll have Friday on my mind
- The Easybeats

Monday, Monday, can't trust that day
Monday, Monday, sometimes it just turns out that way
Oh Monday mornin' you gave me no warnin' of what was to be
Oh Monday, Monday, how could you leave and not take me

Every other day, every other day
Every other day of the week is fine, yeah
But whenever Monday comes, but whenever Monday comes
You can find me cryin' all of the time
- The Mamas & the Papas

It's just another manic Monday
I wish it was Sunday
'Cause that's my funday
My I don't have to run day
It's just another manic Monday
- The Bangles

Tell me why?
I don't like Mondays.
I want to shoot
The whole day down.
- Boomtown Rats

The decline of the public intellectual

An interesting article here.

And more to feel guilty about not reading!

Fundamentalist nutcases or priests of nature?

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

This article from the Onion cracked me up. Nick sent it to me over a year ago, but I didn’t get around to posting about it.

I like this quote:

Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

I’m not sure if the quote from Newton is correct, but if it is, he certainly would have been alluding to a higher power. Newton, and many people who took up his ideas, believed that gravity was evidence of God’s providence. One particularly famous example of this view is the Boyle Lectures given by Richard Bentley in 1692; so famous, in fact, that several historians of science see this as the beginning of an intimate connection between Anglican theology, hierarchical views on social order and Newtonian natural philosophy.*

Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

Physics based on the Bible? This is not as bizarre as it sounds. In the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, there were people who attempted to construct explanations of natural events based on literal readings of Scripture. Thomas Burnet, for example, developed a “Sacred Theory of the Earth” which used Descartes’ philosophy to explain Noah’s flood and the final destruction of the world. William Whiston worked out a similar account using Newtonianism instead of Cartesianism. John Hutchinson, who thought that Newtonianism would lead to atheism, wrote a book called “Moses’ Principia” – an entire system of natural philosophy based on the Genesis account of creation.*

This all sounds like nonsense to us today, with our firm beliefs about the proper roles of religion and science, but things were not so clear-cut back then. I particularly like Robert Boyle’s thoughts on the topic. He suggested that studying the natural world is a type of philosophical worship of God. He described the natural philosopher (or a scientist today, perhaps) as a priest of nature, explaining the book of God’s works to his fellow Christians.

Similarly, I think some scientists today would view their work as understanding God’s creation better – for God’s glory, not for chasing God out of the universe. But I think the most important thing about this historical stuff is that is shows that the relationship between science and religion has not always been about conflict, no matter what some scholars and airport novelists might want us to believe.

*Note: I think all this is correct, but I’m speaking very generally and not constructing a well-researched and referenced argument!

The Candle of the Lord

Nathaniel Culverwell, An Elegant and Learned Discourse of the Light of Nature, 1652

But I speak to men, to Christians, to the friends of learning, to the professors of Reason: to such as put this Candle of the Lord into a golden Candlestick, and poure continual Oile into it. Yet lest any among you Athenians, should erect an Altar to an unknown God; lest you should ignorantly worship him, we will declare him to you.

Proverbs 20:27:

The understanding of a man is the Candle of the Lord. (Culverwell's translation).

The spirit of man is the candle of the LORD, searching all the inward parts of the belly. (KJV)

The spirit of man is the lamp of the LORD, searching all his innermost parts. (ESV)

The lamp of the LORD searches the spirit of a man; it searches out his inmost being. (NIV)

The spirit of man [that factor in human personality which proceeds immediately from God] is the lamp of the Lord, searching all his innermost parts. (Amplified Bible)

God is in charge of human life, watching and examining us inside and out. (The Message)

1 Corinthians 2:11-16 (ESV)

11For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

14The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16"For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

1 Corinthians 1:18-25 (ESV)

18For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart."

20Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

I boast no more

Matt has written a great post about intellectual idolatry. He writes of being challenged about whether he considers his intellect to be more important than God, and whether he puts more trust in himself than in God, thinking that he can solve any problem on his own.

This is something I struggle with too. I don't know if I consider my intellect more important than God, but I do know that it's a source of pride and self-value. Maybe that's not entirely a bad thing, but it is if I start judging other people based on these standards rather than loving them as God's creation. It's also bad if my pride in my intellect leads me to think that I'm better than other people, or that I don't need God as much.

Do I judge people according to their intellect? Last year I was chatting to a friend on MSN and somehow we ended up discussing Descartes. I didn't agree with something one of his lecturers had said about Descartes, and I dismissed his opinion with a comment along the lines of "what kind of authority is he on Descartes?" After all, I'd written a whole honours thesis on Descartes, so of course I knew better. My friend pulled me up on it very quickly and, I thought, rather harshly. But he was so right. I was really shocked at my own behaviour. I think that too some extent it's the influence of my academic environment and training, but that's no excuse. We're to be in the world but not of the world, and that includes academia!

Another example. I rant and rave about judging people on their physical appearance is such a terrible thing. In a discussion on Craig's blog, I suggested that the attraction of My Darcy was that he loved Lizzie for her mind, not for her looks, money or family connections. Craig challenged me on this: "I think loving someone for their mind is just as shallow as loving them for their body." Oh.

I love the Isaac Watts hymn "I boast no more."

1. No more, my God, I boast no more
Of all the duties I have done;
I quit the hopes I held before,
To trust the merits of Thy Son

2. Now, for the loss I bear His name,
What was my gain I count my loss;
My former pride I call my shame,
And nail my glory to His cross.

3. Yes, and I must and will esteem
All things but loss for Jesus’ sake;
O may my soul be found in Him,
And of His righteousness partake!

4. The best obedience of my hands
Dares not appear before Thy throne;
But faith can answer Thy demands,
By pleading what my Lord has done.

Chorus:
No more my God,
No more my God,
No more my God,
I boast no more.

It was sung as an item at my church a while back. There was a wooden cross on the stage, and we wrote down on paper what we considered to be our glory and nailed it to the cross. For me, it was my intellect. I wasn't always this proud of my mind. In high school, I didn't care much. Once I hit uni, started getting some HDs (they can be quite addictive) and some of my lecturers thought that I had academic potential, I did start to become more proud of my intellectual ability.

But is that entirely bad? God has given us certain qualities and gifts to use for his glory. I need to remember that my intellect is a gift from God, and not something that I can be proud of achieving on my own. On the other hand, I shouldn't neglect this ability by not using it. There's a fine line between working hard to use God's gifts wisely, and becoming too dependent on them.

When (or if!) I finish my PhD, can I be proud of that achievement? I think so, as long as I keep it in the perspective of God's grace. I'm working hard at my PhD, but I'm doing it for God's glory, not my own. At least, I hope I am. I see academia as my mission field, and if I become an academic, it won't just be a job - it'll be a ministry. But, I can't do this on my own. I need to acknowledge that God is the one with the power and control. If he wants something to happen, it will. If he doesn't want something to happen, it won't. It's not easy. I think I'll have to continually struggle to submit to God's will, and give all the glory to him, but I think that struggle is just part of living in the "now, but not yet."

Enough rambling. Back to work. I don't think I'll be glorifying God if I spend too much time blogging and not enough on my PhD work!!

Vanity

I'm going grey and I don't like it.

And this comes just after appreciating Nixter's soap-box post...

Amazing!

I managed to get up and out of the house this morning to make it to the gym in time for the 6:15am step class. I'm quite impressed with myself. It's only the third time I've managed it since joining the gym back in May. The step class is fun, but it's quite an exhausting work out. And for some reason, I always seem to end up with a headache later in the day. Not good.

It's a small world after all

It's said that every person in the world is connected to any other person by six or less degrees of separation. I think that if you throw in a Christian, you're down to three. And if that Christian has a blog, it's probably even less!

I started out in the blogosphere by reading Karen's blog. I knew Karen through CBS and Word by Word, received her newsletter and then realised she had a blog. One afternoon when I was procrastinating at uni, I clicked on all her links, and started reading other blogs, one of which was Duncan's. I met Duncan for the first time in real life at a CASE seminar on Monday night, but I didn't know it was that Duncan until he blogged about the seminar. Then, I was browsing through the rest of his blog, found a picture of him with his fiancee Fiona, and realised that I'd had a philosophy class with her a few years back.

From Duncan's blog I followed a link to Martyn's, and from there followed a linked labelled "Veg". I used to chat to a guy on ICQ who was nicknamed Veg. It wasn't his blog - it turned out to be Gin's, and I went to primary school with her!

This is all very scary...

Oh, by the way, I'm only three degrees of separation from Sarah Blasko. That's pretty exciting for me!

3rd Annual European Adventure?

I wasn't planning to go overseas next year, but I might have to reconsider now that I've found out about this extremely exciting conference opportunity...

Science and Religion: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives

I'm already getting excited!

Two days late, so far...

Apparently, nuclear wars were due to start two days ago. Hmmm.

Click here.

Oh baby!

I found this post that I began well over a year ago:

My very good friend Donna recently became an auntie. On Sunday night at church, I got to hold her little nephew Harrison for the first time. He started crying a little, so I gave him back to Auntie Donna - I figured he'd be happier with her, and besides, I didn't want him to throw up on my new black trench coat! I was trying to coax a smile out of him, doing usual baby-entertaining stuff - tickling him, letting him grab my finger, some low-level baby talk along the lines of "you cute little munchkin."

Deb, one of the lovely girls who I led in youth group last year and who I now mentor said to me, "Lara, I think you're clucky!"

"I never used to be clucky!"

"That's what I thought," said Deb. "This isn't the intellectual Lara I'm used to talking to!"

Oops! I've never been particularly clucky. Sure, babies are cute, but they cry and throw up and dirty their nappies, and I'm always happy to give them back. I've never been particularly fond of older kids either. I think four years of teaching Sunday School to kindergarten kids turned me off. But lately, I seem to be getting clucky. "It's not a bad thing," Donna said, but I'm not so sure. It seems now that I might actually want to have children (or maybe just one child) of my own. That means I have to figure out what I believe about gender roles in marriage and parenting! It wouldn't have been an issue if I didn't want to have kids...

I blame my new-found cluckiness on Tim, the associate pastor at my church. Well, at least I blame it on his kids (and I guess his wife, Sam, had something to do with that as well!) Tim and Sam have two little boys - Toby, who is "3 and 5/6" (the 5/6 eems very important to him) and Noah, who turned 1 a month or so ago. They are very adorable kids. Toby can be rather naughty, but generally in a very amusing way, and Noah is just very sweet. I remember visiting Tim and Sam just after Noah was born. Sam asked if I wanted to hold him. I said I wasn't very good with kids. "You'll be fine," she said. "Um, I've got a cold..." "He'll be fine," she insisted. Some months later, at a young adults camp, I voluntarily held him for quite a long time, and he was just so adorable. Probably the first kid who actually seemed to like me.

Update: Toby is now 5, and Noah is 2 and a half. Donna's nephew, Harrison, is about 18 months old. A couple of my other friends had a baby just over three months ago. I saw them at a wedding recently, and was able to hold little Joshua. He was still half asleep, and cuddled against my chest. Just so sweet! And I'm still clucky. In case you hadn't guessed.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s spiritual walk

When a brother or sister in Christ asks me how my walk with God is going, I never know what to say. I don’t even know how to tell if my walk with God is going well or not. Will I feel particularly close to God, or ‘super-spiritual’? Is it when I am reading the Bible and praying regularly? Well, I’d fail on both counts.

In truth, I’ve never been able to keep up regular quiet times for any length of time. I’ve tried different methods – a variety of devotional books, Bible-reading guides, schedules for reading through the whole Bible in a year, outlines of questions for quiet times, morning quiet times, evening quiet times, afternoon quiet times… It’s never lasted more than a few weeks. I’m not very good at praying, either. I feel weird praying aloud by myself, but if I pray silently I get distracted easily. I’ve tried writing my prayers down, but it takes quite a long time, and it feels a bit stilted and excessively formal. Sometimes I pray when I’m going for a walk, but again, I’m not very good at keeping my thoughts under control. Sometimes I feel particularly aware of the love of God, or especially convicted of the truth of Christianity, but at other times I feel very distant.

I was thinking about this recently, and I remembered a book by Bill Hybels, Courageous Leadership, that we studied at church when I was on the deaconate a few years back. I’m not generally a big fan of the kind of material that comes out of massive American churches (with the notable exception of John Piper), but there were parts of this book that I found very encouraging. I recalled a chapter where Hybel’s discusses the different ways in which people relate to God. So, the other night, I reread it.

Hybels writes that he meets church leaders all over the world “who admit to me privately, in hushed tones, that they have never been able to establish and sustain a close, consistent, vital walk with Jesus.”

They tell me how ashamed they feel when other leaders describe their consistent practice of disciplines like solitude, fasting, prayer, journaling, or Scripture memorization. Leaders often end their private confessions of inadequacy by asking, "Is there something wrong with me? Do I have a character flaw or spiritual defect? Why can’t I establish and sustain a vital walk with Christ?”

Often I suggest that perhaps they have never discovered their spiritual pathway – their unique means of moving toward vital union with Christ.

Hybels describes seven different pathways:

1. Relational
2. Intellectual
3. Serving
4. Contemplative
5. Activist
6. Creation
7. Worship

Hybels does point out that most people will not neatly fit into one of these pathways, and the seven he describes are only a sample – he cites a book called Sacred Pathways by Gary Thomas, which I think I’ll try to get hold of. He also warns against comparing one’s own pathway with someone else’s – “pathway envy”. Or, as I think Thomas puts it, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s spiritual walk.”

I particularly like the description of the Intellectual pathway:

People who thrive on the intellectual pathway are those whose minds must be fully engaged before they can make significant spiritual progress. When these folks sit in testimonial services where people are passionately describing God’s amazing activity in their lives, they find themselves thinking, Where’s the beef? These heart-warming stories are all well and good, but where’s the substance? Where’s the theological data? I need something to chew on. I’m dying here!

These people can’t have their morning devotions without two or three opened commentaries flanking their Bibles. They carry several intellectually stretching books with them wherever they go. They gravitate toward classes, seminars, and special events that will challenge their thinking. Why? Because they know that their hearts will never fully engage until their minds are filled with truth…

For people wired up this way, once their minds are fully convinced, their hearts and will quickly follow and their convictions are rock solid. I think it is quite possible that the apostle Paul had an intellectual pathway. For him, the transformation of the world depended on the “renewing of our minds” (Romans 12:2). Paul was quick to appeal to the rational side of human nature, apparently convinced that once a person’s mind belonged to God, everything else would follow. Win the intellectual argument, and it would be game, set, match. Victory!

I’ve met many leaders who feel guilty about their intellectual proclivities. They don’t want anybody knowing that they sneak peeks at the deep stuff once in a while. They feel “unleaderly” if they spend too much time in research and study. The truth of the matter is that if they don’t keep their minds challenged, they will probably dry up spiritually…

If you have an intellectual orientation… stop apologizing for it and start developing a spiritual formation plan that focuses on the development of your mind. Love God with all your mind and watch what happens to your daily union with him.

This is fairly close to describing me. I like heart-warming stories, but more so in testimonies than as sermon illustrations. I respond more to sermons that tell me something I haven’t heard before – something that makes me think about the passage in a new way. The two most interesting subjects I’ve done at Moore College so far were Old Testament Prophets and Biblical Theology, primarily because the lectures were intellectually stimulating and made me look at the Bible from a new perspective. I’d never thought about the structure of Isaiah – how the two middle sections are out of order chronologically, but fit together thematically, or how despite the possibility of more than one author, there’s a literary or thematic unity to the whole book. I’d never considered how the Creation account of Genesis and the New Creation account of Revelation ‘book-end’ the whole Bible, or how the prophets viewed the new creation in different ways depending on their situation – a pastoral image for Isaiah, a priestly perspective for Ezekiel, and a city for John. This kind of stuff fires up my mind, puts me on a high. I wish I could do more theological study, but I only seem to be able to manage two subjects a year.

I find this part of Hybel’s book encouraging, because it reassures me that the way I am is ‘ok’. I don’t have to feel spiritually refreshed by the same things that other people are. It’s ok to be an intellectual, as long as I don’t use that as an excuse to look down on other people. Now, all I need to do is work on the discipline…

Is this guy for real?!?

Click here.

Images of September 11

Last night I attended a seminar at CASE - Religion, terror & film: reflections on 9/11. I found it absolutely fascinating and intellectually stimulating, so I thought I should share some notes on it. Greg Clarke spoke first, giving some theological thoughts on images.

Greg discussed the conflicting attitudes to images throughout the history of Christianity and Christian thought. From the Old Testament commands against making graven images to the use of symbolism of the early church – particularly the fish, and the bread and wine of communion. From the iconoclasm of the Reformers to the Romantic and liberal approach of experiencing God through religious art. From sociologist Jacques Ellul’s “Invasion of the Image” emptying the word of its power, to Archbishop Rowan Williams’ (did you know he’s a druid??) reclamation of the image as giving meaning to the word. Greg suggested a tri-partite Christian approach to imagery:

1. Suspicion. The basic biblical position is iconoclasm. From the OT commandments, to the NT focus on the Word of God and the false image of Christ, images are seen as a (potential?) distraction: leading us to worship the creation instead of the Creator.
2. Confidence. With our trust in the Ultimate Image we can act graciously towards other images, understanding them within the framework of the Image of God revealed in Jesus Christ. Greg came up with a nice phrase he was particularly chuffed about – “epiphanies, not theophanies.” We might experience some kind of meaning from an image, but it’s not going to be a revelation of God. An image may impress, but not save or sanctify.
3. Co-option. In Acts 17 with the altar to the unknown god, Paul co-opts Greek imagery to fit his own doctrinal pattern. Similarly, the ‘accidentally Christian’ imagery of 9/11 – e.g. the cross at the WTC site – can be appropriately (key point) co-opted for Christian apologetics.

The main focus of the evening was Justine Toh's talk on "Re-membering absent bodies". Justine is doing a PhD in Film Studies and Macquarie University. I can’t remember exactly how she articulated her topic, but she’s considering the way 9/11 is represented by imagery and artifacts. She recently returned from a research trip to the US, where she visited Ground Zero, some of the museum exhibits around there as well as in Washington, and interviewed a number of people.

I think the title of her talk here is really clever. “Re-membering absent bodies.” Not just recalling them to mind, but trying to put them back together, to restore their dignity, to be able to grieve properly. So many of the people killed in the attacks have just disappeared. All their families have to grieve over is a jar of dust. The bodies are absent, but in some way they are still present. The absent body is at the heart of 9/11 imagery and, as Justine points out, there is also an absent body at the heart of Christianity.

Justine commented on four films that are about or are connected to the 9/11 attacks: United 93, World Trade Center, War of the Worlds and The Falling Man. I was a little surprised at first by the inclusion of War of the Worlds. I’d forgotten how recently it was made. I started watching it earlier this year, but actually got a bit bored. By some strange coincidence, I think I actually turned it off just before the segment that Justine showed in the seminar – the part where these aliens start zapping people with the heat rays. It’s quite graphic. I thought there were body parts flying through the air, but apparently it was just clothes – the bodies had completely disappeared. All that was left was dust. There’s one part where you see a woman vaporised and Tom Cruise passes through the cloud of dust left behind. When he finally makes it back home, his children ask what this stuff all over him is. It’s quite powerful, particularly when seen in the context of 9/11. I think I should try watching it again.

It was a shame that there was such a small turn out to this seminar – only about 10 people. I have to say that anyone who didn’t come really missed out. This was probably the most fascinating CASE event I have been to so far. I’m not very philosophically inclined, so Greg’s talk on imagery was quite new to me. I love being exposed to these kinds of ideas – it’s like a whole new world has opened up, a new way of viewing things that I’ve never thought about before. And while I have an interest in pop culture, I don’t have a systematic background in cultural studies, and I’m generally not too critical in films, or very aware of the context and meaning of the imagery. I’m looking forward to reading Justine’s thesis when it’s done – it should be fantastic.

I would highly recommend Justine’s upcoming lecture at CASE – ‘Saviours on film – on September 26, 5pm at New College. Unfortunately I can’t make it, but hopefully it will be up on the CASE site eventually. And she has another one on November 28: ‘Spirituality on the screen’, which hopefully I will be able to attend.

Renovation

I ended up with a headache this afternoon after spending more than half an hour arguing about heroic history of science versus contextual history of science. (10 points for the first person who correctly states which side I was on!!)

I would have gone home, but there's a CASE event on tonight. My brain was a bit too tired to start reading Henry More's 1653 classic An Antidote Against Atheisme, so I decided to update my blog. (I was going to do this over the weekend, but I was lazy and watched about six episodes of Lois and Clark on DVD instead.)

Any thoughts on the new look?

Are we worthy of our kitchens?

This is an interesting article by Christine Rosen. Are we buying more and more kitchen stuff in the hope that it will improve our home lives, while we should just be spending more time at home using the things we already have?

The argument that domestic appliances have not eased the burden of housekeeping for women seems strangely familiar. I'm sure it's part of Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique, but I can't be sure because it's a long time since I read that, and I didn't finish it anyway. Friedan took the argument much further, though, to suggest that the production of all these fancy gadgets for household chores was a deliberate attempt to oppress women by keeping them in the home, working harder than ever.

However, Rosen raises some thought-provoking points. Our culture seems to be more and more keen on the trappings of domesticity - fancy appliances, beautiful kitchens, glossy cookbooks - but less and less keen on actual domesticity. People are working longer hours, buying more take-away food, eating together as a family less often. Appliances are supposed to make our lives easier, but we are just as busy as ever. Duncan wrote an interesting post about iPods, and how we almost seem to be afraid of silence these days. (I do have to say here that my iPod is very handy, because sometimes it's dangerous to leave me alone with my thoughts, but I didn't pay for it. My brother won it for me. Thanks Tim!) Do we really believe that these kinds of material possessions will make our lives easier? Will I actually get more work done once my shiny and speedy new MacBook arrives?

I think there's something about the picture of perfect domesticity that we are served up from magazines and lifestyle TV that appeals to a lot of people. It seems so peaceful... clean... tidy... orderly. If only we had the right house, or the right gadgets, we could live like that too. I know I get caught up in this kind of thing too. It's often stationery for me. If I go to Officeworks and get a whole bunch of fancy file boxes and folders, I'll be able to keep my life and work in order. I don't covet $6000 Aga stoves, but I do like granite benchtops (good for making pasta and pastry!) and those pretty blue Breville appliances and saucepans. And I have collected a pile of Nigella Lawson homewares for my glory cupboard. I've even got a copy of The Penguin Book of Housekeeping. I've consulted it once - I wanted to see how the author suggested folding fitted sheets. They can be so tricky! I guess it's all this kind of stuff that prompted one of my friends to tell me once that I'm "too Martha Stewart to be a feminist"...

But anyway, I found this article fascinating. Domestic bliss is a huge marketing tool at the moment, but it's something that many people just don't have. I don't think buying more stuff will solve our problems, though.

Nice. Very nice.

I found Simon Conway Morris's abbreviated CV on the web. A very impressive list of achievements: Fellow of the Royal Society of London, Professor at the University of Cambridge... but I particularly liked what he listed under 'Other Interests':

Wine, G.K. Chesterton, science and religion

I wonder if I'd be more employable if I listed 'wine' as one of my interests on my resume??

Waiting for Mr Darcy

Some comments on this 'phenomenon' from Nixter, Craig and Sam in the City.

Yep, I've been guilty of this too.

"Where's my Mr Darcy?"

"I want to go to Cambridge so I can meet my Mr Darcy!"

And so on...

But do I have unrealistic expectations about the perfect relationship? I'm not so sure I do. I complain that all the nice guys I meet are either gay, married, non-Christian, not interested or not an option for some other reason, and it's not as though I'm turning away scores of potential suitors.

Besides, Mr Darcy wasn't perfect (in Pride and Prejudice or in Bridget Jones). Neither was Lizzie. And they didn't have an easy relationship either. First Darcy insults Lizzie, then she vows never to even dance with him, he proposes in an extremely insulting and patronising way, she refuses harshly and perhaps too honestly. And then when they start to have feelings for each other, they both have to deal with family objections... What attracts me to someone like Darcy is that he loved Lizzie not for her looks, for her money, or for her family connections, but for her mind. And I can relate to Lizzie because of her determination to marry for love. Two classic Lizzie quotes (from the BBC version - it's all I can remember off by heart):

If I could love a man who would love me enough to take me for a mere £50 a year, I should be very well pleased... Such a man could hardly be sensible, and you know I could never love a man who was out of his wits!

I am determined that nothing but the very deepest love will induce me into matrimony. So... I shall end an old maid and teach your 10 children to embroider cushions and play their instruments very ill!

Jane: A marriage where neither party can respect the other, that cannot be agreeable.
Lizzie: As we have daily proof...

The relationship between Darcy and Lizzie is about love, respect and a true meeting of minds, despite the faults of the individuals. That's the fairytale that I want. I'm not looking for the perfect man. I'm not expecting love at first sight. But I would love to think that there is someone out there, someone that, when the right time comes, I will want to share my life with. All I know is that he will love God and love me. What's a few imperfections in light of that?!

Edit:

I should also link to Mike's beautiful post about Christine. A real-life fairytale perhaps?

7:40AM...

...and I'm already at uni. This is a little scary...

Books I read (for pleasure) in July & August 2006

1. Alex Garland, The Beach

I bought this as some light reading to take overseas. It was ok, but seemed to be a bit of a rip-off of Lord of the Flies, and things got really weird by the end of the book. It's also been made into a movie with Leonardo di Caprio, but I haven't seen that.

2. Henry James, The Portrait of a Lady

This was some less light reading I took overseas. I like to take cheap books with me so I can leave them behind, and classics tend to be quite cheap! The book is described as a tragedy, and it took awhile before I could see how it would be tragic. But it really was very sad. Isabel, the heroine, is a free spirit but she ends up making a terrible decision that basically removes all her freedom.

3. Iain Pears, An Instance of the Fingerpost

This was a fantastic book! It was recommended to me by some people I met at the BSHS conference in Canterbury, and it was definitely a worthwhile read. It's a murder mystery set in Restoration Oxford, told in four conflicting accounts. Characters include Robert Boyle and John Locke - people I'm studying for my PhD. And considering I'd just been to Oxford, it was even more exciting! I didn't pick the ending, but that's not unusual. I enjoy getting caught up in novels so I can be surprised by the twists.

4. Marisha Pessl, Special Topics in Calamity Physics

This book had the potential to be very special, and it was quite an enjoyable read. It just seemed a little pretentious with all the references, and was a little too close to Donna Tartt's The Secret History, an excellent book. Also, the story unfolded very slowly over 600 or so pages, and the end seemed rather far-fetched.

5. Susanna Gregory, A Wicked Deed

This is the 5th Matthew Bartholomew Chronicle - a series of crime novels set in medieval Cambridge. The main character, Matthew Bartholomew, is a physican with some rather unorthodox ('modern') ideas about how to treat his patients. It can get a little tiring seeing him always opposed by the fanatical friars and monks who view him as heretical, so it was nice to see him in this novel espousing a view that is wrong by modern standards - i.e. that the earth is motionless. These novels are always a good, light read.

What is going on in there?!

Sometimes I really worry about myself. Occasionally I doubt my own sanity - usually after a particularly strange dream. I have weird dreams quite often - most nights - and I remember bits and pieces of them. Perhaps it has something to do with not sleeping very well and waking up frequently during the night. These dreams often make me wonder what on earth is going on inside my head!

The other night, I had a dream that someone showed me a figurine, a kind of action figure, I guess, of a Cambridge Platonist. This person (not sure who they were) told me they bought it at a Disney Store, so I went looking. I'm not sure what city I was in. Sometimes it seemed like Sydney; other times, it seemed I was on holidays. At one point I was riding a bike. Well, I was trying to ride a bike, wobbling all over the road. I finally found the Disney Store, and it was MASSIVE! So, I'm wandering around, trying to find these Cambridge Platonist figurines, and the store is about to close, but I desperately want one, so I'm frantically looking at all the shelves... The store has at least three levels, and rows and rows of shelves. It's kind of like a maze - weaving in and out, trying to get past people, trying to find these figurines before the store closes, because I'm going back home and won't be able to find them at home for some reason, unless I use the internet... I'm not sure if I found them or not - can't quite remember where the dream ended.

Weird, huh? The Cambridge Platonists were a group of theologians and philosophers based at the University of Cambridge, mainly at Emmanuel College, around the time of the Civil War in England, in the mid-seventeenth century. Why anyone would make action figures of these guys, I have no idea. That said, if there were action figures of the Cambridge Platonists, I'd certainly be out looking for them! Although I think I'd be after an action figure of Descartes or Galileo first. I could buy an action figure of Albert Einstein, and I have been tempted, but have never got around to it.

So what does this dream mean? Perhaps I've been working too hard. I've spent most of the last fortnight on the Cambridge Platonists, and I spent awhile before that reading Ralph Cudworth's The True Intellectual System of the Universe, one of the major works to come out of the group. That was a pretty intense book - took me 6 days to get through it. He makes such fun of atheists though - it's quite amusing.

I think the bike bit may have been a reminder of cycling in France and all the bruises I got from bashed the pedals against my legs, crashing into barriers and falling off.

Hmm... I wonder if there would be much of a market for action figures of seventeenth-century theologians and natural philosophers? Maybe a series of the Boyle Lecturers - that would be cool! Perhaps I should throw in my PhD and go into toy making...

Or, maybe not.

I am just a speck of dust inside a giant's eye...

I heard this song on Triple J this morning. I thought it was quite a cute song, the lyrics are kind of sweet, and I think most people get the feeling from time to time that they are so tiny compared to this enormous universe we're in, and so unimportant in the context of human history. But, it's exciting as a Christian to know that even though we are so small, we're still important to God. So important that he wants to be in a relationship with us, and sent Jesus to die so that relationship could be restored. And God is not some distant, scary deity, uninvolved with our lives. We have an intimate relationship with him as father and children, so we can call the creator of this amazing universe Abba, Father.

When I go for a drive I like to pull off to the side
Of the road, turn out the lights, get out and look up at the sky
And I do this to remind me that I'm really, really tiny
In the grand scheme of things and sometimes this terrifies me

But it's only really scary cause it makes me feel serene
In a way I never thought I'd be because I've never been
So grounded, and so humbled, and so one with everything
I am grounded, I am humbled, I am one with everything

Rock and roll is fun but if you ever hear someone
Say you are huge, look at the moon, look at the stars, look at the sun
Look at the ocean and the desert and the mountains and the sky
Say I am just a speck of dust inside a giant's eye
I am just a speck of dust inside a giant's eye

When I saw Geneviève I really liked it when she said
What she said about the giant and the lemmings on the cliff
She said 'I like giants
Especially girl giants
Cause all girls feel too big sometimes
Regardless of their size'

When I go for a drive I like to pull off to the side
Of the road and run and jump into the ocean in my clothes
And I'm smaller than a poppyseed inside a great big bowl
And the ocean is a giant that can swallow me whole

So I swim for my salvation and I swim to save my soul
But my soul is just a whisper trapped inside a tornado
So I flip to my back and I float and I sing
I am grounded, I am humbled, I am one with everything
I am grounded, I am humbled, I am one with everything

So I talked to Geneviève and almost cried when she said
That the giant on the cliff wished that she was dead
And the lemmings on the cliff wished that they were dead
So the giant told the lemmings why they ought to live instead

When she thought up all those reasons that they ought to live instead
It made her reconsider all the sad thoughts in her head
So thank you Geneviève, cause you take what is in your head
And you make things that are so beautiful and share them with your friends

We all become important when we realize our goal
Should be to figure out our role within the context of the whole
And yeah, rock and roll is fun, but if you ever hear someone
Say you are huge, look at the moon, look at the stars, look at the sun
Look at the ocean and the desert and the mountains and the sky

Say I am just a speck of dust inside a giant's eye
I am just a speck of dust inside a giant's eye
I am just a speck of dust inside a giant's eye
And I don't wanna make her cry
Cause I like giants

Kimya Dawson

If

If you can organise your lab
Nor lose the power to think
And deal with academic chores
Not drive yourself to drink.
If you can make a test of all your findings
And risk it on one test of yes or no
And lose, then
You'll stay a prof my son.

Patrick Blackett, unpublished manuscript.

Making time

Hmm... Haven't managed to post as much as I would like. I guess I'm being too conscientious with my PhD work! Or maybe it's just less effort to read other people's blogs...

Stay tuned for some musings on feminism, scepticism and Calvinism, hopefully coming soon!

Counterfactuals

Would the 'Galileo Affair' have happened if:

• Galileo hadn't offended the Pope?
• Cardinal Bellarmine had died before 1616?
• Cardinal Bellarmine had been around for the 1633 trial?

Revisiting the Book Meme

It's amazing how much time some people have. At this blog here, a guy called Kevin has gone through the answers 275 people gave to the book meme, and has come up with a list of the books that received the most positive comments. He also looked at which books were mentioned by a number of people as books they wish hadn't been written. This list included Rick Warren's The Purpose Driven Life, though at least two people had rated that positively...

Oh, and he also lists all the people whose answers he looked at, including me! (Hurrah! I'm famous in the blogosphere!) Wonder how he found them all?

Baby Got Book

Who remembers Sir Mix-A-Lot's 'Baby Got Back' from some time back in the 90s? Well, here is a hilarious Christian remake, performed at the Narwee Baptist Church Young Adults Christmas in July dinner, which unfortunately I missed because I was in Cambridge. Poor me.

Anyway, check out the Narwee version here.

Then check out the original version here. And the lyrics are here.

Enjoy!!

Creation and Evolution

If you happen to be a 'creation scientist' (or something of that kind) and have read this far, may I politely suggest that you put this book back on the shelf. It will do you no good. Evolution is true, it happens, it is the way the world it, and we too are one of its products. This does not mean that evolution does not have metaphysical implications; I remain convinced that this is the case. To deny, however, the reality of evolution and more seriously to distort deliberately the scientific evidence of fundamentalist tenets is inadmissible.

Simon Conway Morris, Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe, p. xv.

Galileo

Everything you believe about Galileo is false!

David C. Lindberg, Faraday Summer Course, 2006

Creation or Multiverses?

Surely the conjecture that there is just one universe and its Creator is infinitely simpler and easier to believe than that there are countless billions upon billions of worlds, constantly increasing in number and created by nobody. I can only marvel at the low state to which today's philosophy of science has fallen.

Martin Gardner, Are Universes Thicker than Blackberries? p. 9.

Science as apologetics?

"We don't proclaim our faith on the basis of the evolution of the sabre-tooth cat."

Simon Conway Morris, Faraday Summer Course, July 2006

Oops!

I went down the the UNSW bookshop to buy two books... but ended up with four. Those stands of new books facing the door are a very sneaky strategy to boost sales. Must learn to resist temptation...

These are the four books:

1. Boris Akunin, Pelagia and the White Bulldog.

Akunin's last Erast Fandorin mystery was rather disappointing, so I'm hoping that this 'Sister Pelagia' series will be better. I like a good crime novel, but John Grisham now seems to be writing moral fables, Kathy Reich's keeps copying Patricia Cornwell's plots, and I wonder about some crime authors - what kind of minds can come up with that kind of evil and brutality? And Patricia Cornwell is just too mean to poor Kay Scarpetta.

2. Andrew Drummond, A Handbook of Volapuk.

Battles over universal languages. I wonder if John Wilkins will get a mention? Speaking of universal languages, I saw a book on Amazon which looks interesting - Philosophical Languages in the Seventeenth Century: Dalgarno, Wilkins, Leibniz. Unfortunately, it's US$164.00, so I won't be buying it. Not today, anyway...

3. Marisha Pessl, Special Topics in Calamity Physics.

A coming-of-age murder mystery set around a Great Books course.

4. Simon Conway Morris, Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe.

I heard Simon Conway Morris speak at Cambridge, and apart from being very entertaining to watch and listen to, he had some fascinating ideas that I'd never come across before. To put it simply, Conway Morris is suggesting that evolution has direction and a destination - intelligent, human-like creatures. So, even if the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs had missed the earth, something like us would still have evolved. And if there is life elsewhere in the universe, it is more likely to be similar to us than different. More on this once I've read the book. Don't hold your breath, though. I've got piles of unread books at home!

What are you going to do when you grow up?

This morning when I was waiting for my bagel to be toasted, the girl in the shop asked if I was heading to class. I told her that I'm doing a PhD, so I do research.

"PhD? What does that mean?"

"Doctor of Philosophy... but I'm doing it in the history of science."

"History of science? That sounds exciting."

"Well, I think it is."

"So what are you going to do when you grow up?"

"I'm hoping to stay in universities - be an academic."

"So you love learning?"

"Yes... and teaching."

"Oh, that's beautiful!"

I know I look young, but I'm sure that she couldn't have been any older. And I'd like to think that I'm already grown up! At least a little bit... But being asked questions like this is one of the downsides of being a PhD student. Usually the question is "What does that qualify you to do?" I find that a bit hard to answer. I think it comes from a rather vocational view of education, which I don't necessarily subscribe to. I'm all in favour of education for its own sake - learning for the sheer joy of learning. It's not just about learning 'facts' (if indeed there are such things). Education teaches people how to reason and think critically.

So what will my PhD qualify me to do? Think. And reason. And rip illogical or unfounded arguments to shreds.

With the teaching experience I'm gaining at the moment, and the publications that will hopefully happen sometime in the near future, I might one day be qualified for a real ('tenure track', if I leave Oz) academic position! And then I can continue researching and publishing in order to keep my position, and supervise more students to perpetuate the cycle!

Cracking up

While I had a wonderful time in Paris, I did feel that Dan Brown had ruined my experience, just a bit. Everywhere I went, I saw pyramids, and chalices, and rose windows. I barely saw anything that didn't make me think of The Da Vinci Code.

On our second day in Paris, Katrina and I visited the Louvre. We got there early, and made a beeline for the Mona Lisa so we could see it without too much of a crowd. It's not a very big painting, but I already knew that, so it wasn't a disappointment. Her eyes really do follow you around, too. Fortunately for Katrina, I managed to resist the urge to scream "I've cracked the code!" I was careful to notice that the perspective was painted differently on either side, which is supposed to make one side of her appear larger, thus emphasising the sacred feminine. Or so Dan Brown says. But he's an expert on these things, right?

The Louvre is a massive museum. I get museum fatigue rather quickly, and just looking at the size of the building made me feel tired! Katrina and I split up and wandered for about 3 hours before meeting for lunch. That would have been enough for me, but Katrina seemed determined to at least walk through every room in the museum. Unfortunately, I managed to misplace my ticket after lunch, so I couldn't get back in. I wasn't prepared to pay another 8 euros to buy another ticket, so I went for a wander in the Jardin de Tuileries.

The Louvre was certainly worth visiting, but I think that if I ever go back to Paris, I'll go at a time when there are less tourists, like the middle of winter. And I'll make sure I'm over my jet lag, so I can appreciate it more.

One book (to rule them all?)

Tagged by my brother Tim.

1. One book that changed your life:
Unnatural Enemies by Kirsten Birkett was quite influential in my decision to switch from Medical Science to History and Philosophy of Science, so I guess without it I would be an unhappy, failing medical student!

2. One book that you’ve read more than once:
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee

3. One book you’d want on a desert island:
SAS Survival Handbook: How to Survive in the Wild, in Any Climate, on Land or at Sea by John 'Lofty' Wiseman

4. One book that made you laugh:
How to Create a Flawless Universe In Just Eight Days by Godfather Publications

5. One book that made you cry:
Les Miserables by Victor Hugo. Shouldn't have been surprised, I guess.

6. One book that you wish had been written:
The Princess Bride by S. Morgenstern. As mentioned in The Princess Bride by William Goldman.

7. One book that you wish had never been written:
Wish by Peter Goldsworthy

8. One book you’re currently reading:
An Instance of the Fingerpost by Ian Pears. History of Science fiction set in Restoration Oxford. How fantastic is that?!

9. One book you’ve been meaning to read:
Prophets Facing Backward: Postmodern Critiques of Science and Hindu Nationalism in India
by Meera Nanda

10. Now tag five people:
Hmm... Not too many people with blogs who read this. Nick, Tim G, Karen (but she's probably already done this...)

La Tour Eiffel

22 Eiffel Tower, originally uploaded by Larakate.

Here's a picture of the Eiffel Tower that I took on my first night in Paris. Katrina and I were staying in a hotel quite close to the Eiffel Tower, which was very convenient. I had quite a long nap in the afternoon, after flying into Paris at 6am that morning and going on a 3-hour walking tour. We managed to climb the tower though, as far as we were able to. We stayed to watch the sunset, although it was a little too hazy. After this we found a restaurant with snails and a very rude waiter. I guess that's something that needs to be experienced once in Paris!

Leaving the blogsphere

Dear all,

Sadly, the time has come for me to sign off from here for good. I have many things on my plate this year - church, PhD, work, study, CASE - and I need to carefully prioritise my time. While I've enjoyed writing this blog and meeting some interesting people in the blogosphere, I don't have enough time to keep it up. My posts have been few and far-between lately, though I have kept this up longer than any other traditional journals I've tried keeping!

Anyway, I'm sure I'll see people around. It's a very small world in Christian circles!

Lara

Pieces of me

I hope that no one minds me quoting from someone who is related to Jessica Simpson, but sometimes the words that describe how we feel come from the most unlikely sources. Well, in this case, it's not actually how I feel, but something I would love to have.

On a Monday I am waiting
Tuesday, I am fading
And by Wednesday, I can't sleep
Then the phone rings, I hear you
And the darkness is a clear view
Cause you’ve come to rescue me

Fall, with you I fall so fast
I can hardly catch my breath
I hope it lasts

Oh, it seems like I can finally
Rest my head on something real
I like the way that feels
Oh, it's as if you know me better
Than I ever knew myself
I love how you can tell
All the pieces, pieces, pieces of me
All the pieces, pieces, pieces of me

I am moody and messy
I get restless and it's senseless
How you never seem to care
When I'm angry, you listen
Make me happy, it's your mission
And you won't stop till I'm there

Fall, sometimes I fall so fast
When I hit that bottom crash
You're all I have

How do you know
Everything I'm about to say
Am I that obvious?
And if it's written on my face
I hope it never goes away
Yeah!

On a Monday I am waiting
And by Tuesday I am fading
Into your arms
So I can breathe

Oh, it seems like I can finally
Rest my head on something real
I like the way that feels
Oh, it's as if you know me better
Than I ever knew myself
I love how you can tell
All the pieces, pieces, pieces of me
All the Pieces, pieces, pieces of me
- Ashlee Simpson

This is very cool...

A plush version of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is up for sale on eBay!

A question...

How on earth do non-coffee drinkers survive Monday mornings?

Welcome!

If you are particularly observant, you may have noticed a new entry in the list of blogs I read: Indiana Nick and the Philosophy Degree.

Nick is my HPS buddy from way back. He recently moved to Indiana (yes, that's in the USA) to begin graduate school in HPS. He's a lot braver than I am, but I'll still be a doctor before he is!

Australian Politics Test

I've apparently already been quite personal on this blog, so I guess I may as well reveal my political tendencies as well...

According to the Australian Politics Test on the OzPolitics Blog, the political party whose policy outlook aligns most closely with my views is the Labor Party, followed closely by Family First, which is kind of strange...

You can see the rest of my results here.

Mawwage, that bwessed awwangement; that dweam wivin a dweam...

I had the strangest dream last night. I dreamed that I was getting married at a church that was kind of a cross between the Goulburn and Narwee Baptist churches. The congregation hadn't arrived yet; it might have been the rehearsal, except that I was already in my wedding dress. I saw the guy that I was getting married to, but I couldn't recognise him as anyone I know in real life. The strange part was that I didn't seem to know him very well - it seemed almost like an arranged marriage - so I was a bit nervous and kind of shy, but still happy to be getting married to him.

Tres bizarre!!

A number of years back, I went to a Chris Isaak concert (and no, I'm not embarrassed to admit that I like Chris Isaak!), and Kasey Chambers, who was just starting out in the 'mainstream' at that time, was the support act. She mentioned that her song, 'The Captain', had been described as the least feminist song ever written. This is not very surprising, given the lyrics of the song:

Well I don't have as many friends because
I'm not as pretty as I was
I've kicked myself at times because I've lied
So I will have to learn to stand my ground
I'll tell 'em I won't be around
I'll move on over to your town and hide

Well I have handed all my efforts in
I searched here for my second wind
Is there somewhere here to let me in I asked
So I slammed the doors they slammed at me
I found the place I'm meant to be
I figured out my destiny at last

You be the Captain
And I'll be no-one
And you can carry me away if you want to
And you can lay low
Just like your father and if
I tread upon your feet you just say so
'Cos you're The Captain, I am no-one,
I tend to feel as though I owe one to you

Now, this might surprise those of you who are familiar with my feminist tendencies, but there is something about the picture this song portrays that appeals to me. Not the 'I am no one' part, but the more general idea of taking refuge in a relationship with someone else. Perhaps I'm being weak or lazy, or just pessimistic, when I think that I can't make it through life on my own, but I like the idea of having someone to look after me - someone to watch over me!

I know that I already have someone watching over me, and I know that a relationship with God is more perfect and more satisfying than a human relationship could ever be, but I still long for that special relationship in this life. Again, this might be surprising coming from someone who claims to be some kind of feminist, but I love the way the Bible portrays marriage.

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
- Ephesians 5:25-33 (ESV)

That is such a beautiful picture of marriage. Imagine someone loving you as Christ loved the church. Would it be difficult for a woman to submit to a man who loved her like this? Well, yes, I guess it would be. It's hard enough to submit fully to God, let alone to another human with all his flaws.

Last night at church, Mike Frost spoke on the theme of 'Is this as good as it gets?' Obviously, his answer was 'no'. He talked about this passage:

Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. In my Father's house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. And you know the way to where I am going.
- John 14:1-4 (ESV)

I've heard that passage many times. When I was little, I used to picture heaven as some kind of huge mansion, with lots and lots of rooms. My grandfather died when I was 5, and I remember saying that when I got to heaven, I would knock on all the doors until I found him. (When I was in year 7, though, my scripture teacher ruined my childhood fantasy by telling us that people don't go straight to heaven - they're just kind of asleep until judgement day.)

Mike Frost explained this passage in terms of marriage - something I'd never thought about before, but it makes sense, particularly given all the marriage illustrations used to describe the church's relationship with Christ. It's an incredible thought. Jesus is preparing a place for us in his Father's house - not as siblings or friends, but as his bride. It's just amazing to think about. One day, when the time is right, Jesus will return and take us to be with him; to live with him in that special and exclusive marraige relationship. How awesome is that?! And I love the passage from Isaiah that Mike also quoted:

"For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth,and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind.
But be glad and rejoice forever in that which I create; for behold, I create Jerusalem to be a joy,and her people to be a gladness.
I will rejoice in Jerusalem and be glad in my people; no more shall be heard in it the sound of weeping and the cry of distress.
No more shall there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not fill out his days, for the young man shall die a hundred years old, and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed.
They shall build houses and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
They shall not build and another inhabit; they shall not plant and another eat; for like the days of a tree shall the days of my people be, and my chosen shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
They shall not labor in vain or bear children for calamity, for they shall be the offspring of the blessed of the LORD, and their descendants with them.
Before they call I will answer; while they are yet speaking I will hear.
The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent's food. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain," says the LORD.
- Isaiah 65:17-25 (ESV)

I think that the main reason the biblical picture of marriage seems so beautiful is because it is an illustration of the church's relationship with Christ. Sure, it might be a great thing on earth, but it's only a shadow of the true marriage to come.

It's tempting to view the biblical picture of marriage as an ideal - something that sounds good in theory, but doesn't work out in reality. Sure, if the husband is fulfilling his responsibility to love his wife as Christ loved the church, submission wouldn't be a bad thing, but I guess that's not the right way to look at it. As Christians, we're called to live as God wants us to, regardless of the way others around us live. That's what freaks me out about marriage, but I think I've been rambling long enough for one post!

So why was I dreaming about getting married? Perhaps it's just on my mind lately. Mike Frost's talk at church last night; the fact that so many of my friends are pairing off into couples, getting engaged, and getting married... I'm still single, so I have to keep hoping that this will happen to me in the future!

And why was I dreaming about marrying someone I didn't really know? Perhaps because Mike Frost was talking about arranged marriages (that was the usual procedure in the 1st century, after all!) Perhaps because I don't yet know who I'll end up married to.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter. I don't believe that dreams have a definite meaning. That's fortunate too, because I don't even want to think about what the weird little echidna-cross-daddy long legs spider was supposed to represent!!

Ha ha ha!

This is quite amusing!

Yesterday

I like this, but I desperately hope it never happens to me!!

Yesterday,
All those backups seemed a waste of play.
Now my chapters have all gone away.
Oh I believe in yesterday.

I…pushed…something wrong
What it was I could not say.
Now my thesis is gone
and I long for yesterday-ay-ay-ay.

Suddenly,
There’s not half the files there used to be,
And there’s a deadline hanging over me.
Office crashed so suddenly.

Yesterday,
The need for back-ups seemed so far away.
I knew my thesis was all here to stay,
Now I believe in yesterday.

(I found this on Cosmic Variance)

Another nerdy joke

There are 10 types of people in this world: those who understand binary numbers and those who don't.

Tee hee!

Actually, I prefer this one:

There are two types of people in this world: those who divide people up into two types and those who don't.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

(Oh, my sides...)

That's, um, interesting advice...

From Christian Singles Today, some advice on How to Ask a Man Out Without Asking a Man Out.

Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Most of our dating methods are insane. If you want to meet new people, you have to get out of your same old routine and follow your passions, whether that entails taking a cooking class, learning how to two-step, operating a power saw, or firing a hand gun. And when you do notice that cute guy, wave at him … it may encourage him just enough to ask for your number.

Firing a hand gun?!