Days and days

Donna-May is having a Lara Day! That makes me feel all warm and fuzzy!

I'm having a tedious working on footnotes day. Oh well, at least I'm getting paid for it.

And this week has been a plagiarism week - found an essay and a tutorial paper that were almost entirely (well, one was entirely, the other had some paraphrasing) copied from the internet. I don't know what is going through these people's heads! One student has problems with English, but surely there must be a better way! Am I really not going to notice, particularly when they have left in a hyperlink from Wikipedia so it comes out underlined and grey instead of black??!

Plagiarism

This article is spot on.

I fear for the future of our nation.

Sarah Blasko

A review from the SMH.

Pirate Treasure

This is so hilarious! Good thing there aren't many people left here in my office to be disturbed by my attempts to stifle my laughter!! Nice work, Angus!!

Adherents

One of my students included this diagram in her journal. I thought it was interesting. I thought Judaism would have been a larger religion, though from looking at other statistics, it does have nearly 30 times as many adherents as scientology...

From the same site, a list of the 22 largest religions in the world:

1 Christianity: 2.1 billion
2 Islam: 1.3 billion
3 Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 million
4 Hinduism: 900 million
5 Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
6 Buddhism: 376 million
7 primal-indigenous: 300 million
8 African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
9 Sikhism: 23 million
10 Juche: 19 million
11 Spiritism: 15 million
12 Judaism: 14 million
13 Baha'i: 7 million
14 Jainism: 4.2 million
15 Shinto: 4 million
16 Cao Dai: 4 million
17 Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
18 Tenrikyo: 2 million
19 Neo-Paganism: 1 million
20 Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
21 Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
22 Scientology: 500 thousand

I have to say it again...

I like it. I like it a lot.

Favourite songs so far:

• {Explain}
• Queen of Apology
• Planet New Year

Freedom in education

Scientists and philosophers

What's the definition of a scientist? Someone who looks for a black cat in a dark room. And a philosopher? Someone who looks for a black cat in a dark room where there is no black cat.

Poor little bird!

My gorgeous little cockatiel, Mate, has not been well lately. For some reason he has been pulling out feathers from under his wing, and has managed to get an infection. After two weeks of topical cream and two different antibiotics, the infection has not gotten any better, so now he has to wear a collar to keep him from pecking at the area until it starts to heal and the feathers start to grow back. Mate tossed such a tantrum when the vet put the collar on him. I felt so sorry for him, but at the same time it was difficult not to laugh just a little bit! He's coping fairly well, though it's a bit tricky for him to climb around his cage, and he tends to fall off his perch fairly often! He needs to have the collar on for two weeks, and hopefully it won't have to be any longer than that. Poor bird.

This other photo is from a couple of weeks ago. I was spraying him with water, and he seemed to be enjoying it and wanting more water, so he ended up getting a little too drenched...

Oh dear!

Looks like I might have to rethink my entire belief system. His Noodliness, the Flying Spaghetti Monster has been spotted in Germany.

Click here.

Philosophical musing on Babylon 5

Click here.

Science and Christian Apologetics

This is a short talk I gave at a CASE Scholars Consultation on Friday 10 November, 2006. The purpose of the day was for the CASE scholars to share what we have been thinking about the links that can be made between our own disciplines and Christianity. I spoke about the opportunities and potential pitfalls of science-based apologetics. It's an issue I've been considering for awhile, though I haven't really come to any conclusions. I'd be interested in feedback from anyone who would like to offer some!

CASE SCHOLARS CONSULTATION
APOLOGETICS AND THE DISCIPLINES

SCIENCE-BASED APOLOGETICS: OPPORTUNITIES AND PITFALLS

I’m currently working on a PhD in the School of History and Philosophy of Science at UNSW. My thesis concerns relations between science and religion in 17th century England, but I’m also interested in current debates on the topic. Something I’ve been pondering for awhile is how science is used in Christian apologetics. I think science can be used in positive ways, but I also have a few reservations. I don’t have a clear position on this issue yet, so what I aiming to do here is to throw out a few ideas to see what people think.

I have sometimes wondered… If the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, what is the point of rational argument? As the apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians, where 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?1

I doubt that there is a better example of the “wisdom of the world” than modern science.

Although we should be cautious about relying on worldly wisdom, the apostle Peter called us to be ready to give a reason for the hope that we have.2 Can science have a role in Christian apologetics? More specifically, what are the advantages and possible pitfalls of science-based apologetics?

I found it useful in thinking about this topic to consider the different types of apologetics, such as those mentioned in this quote:

Apologetics attempts to render the Christian faith persuasive to the contemporary individual. For unbelievers, it is belief forming; it helps to defuse attacks upon Christianity, and to establish Christianity as credible by giving intellectual support to the explanatory value of a biblical world view. For believers, it is belief sustaining; it nurtures Christian faith by calling believers to love their Lord with their minds.3

I think there are three separate roles for apologetics here:

1. Answering challenges given by those who oppose Christianity
2. Providing arguments to establish the credibility of the Christian world view
3. Supporting the beliefs of people who are already Christians.

I’m going to look at these three in reverse order.


Belief Sustaining

I think there can be a tendency for some Christians to be wary of science. After all, we’re told all the time that there is an age-old conflict between science and religion, and that science will inevitably triumph. It’s not surprising that Christians are a bit suspicious.

I could give an entire lecture on how wrong this “conflict myth” is, but I’ll just make a few quick points. The major figures in the history of science – the “fathers” of modern science – were committed believers. Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler, Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton – they were all devout Christians.

In addition, there are theological concepts that were considered vital to the development of empirical science. The idea that empirical enquiry can tell us anything about the world, the concept of laws of nature… these are tied to theological debates about the will of God and his work in Creation. For many historians, it is no coincidence that modern science arose in the West instead of the East – it was the theological concept of a God who created of his own free will in an orderly and regular manner that allowed scientific investigation of the world to take place.

How might modern science be able to support Christians in their faith? Can science help us to love the Lord our God with all our mind?

Historically, we would be in good company here. Galileo, Kepler, and Boyle – the fathers of modern science – viewed their study of the natural world as understanding God’s creation. Both Kepler and Boyle regarded themselves as “priests of nature”, expounding the book of God’s works for their fellow man. Boyle described the pursuit of natural knowledge as “philosophical worship of God”.

Psalm 19:1 – “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.” We know that God created everything – perhaps understanding his creation better will enable us to worship him more.


Belief Forming, Part 1 – Establishing Christianity as Credible

Can science prove the existence of God or any other doctrines of Christianity?

Historically, the answer was yes. Natural theology, particularly as it developed towards the end of the 17th century in England, could be seen as the attempt to use science to support religious belief.

Natural theology has gone out of fashion, particularly among Reformed Christians. However, there are people who are doing something similar today. The main example that comes to mind is Hugh Ross, the astronomer and director of the Reasons to Believe institute. Dr Ross has written a number of books which seek to establish the factual basis of the Bible using scientific discoveries.

I’m not qualified to discuss the science here, but regardless of the status of the science, I think there is a possible danger here. Do we really want to hitch theology too closely to science? The history of science shows that scientific theories are always open to revision, improvement, and even radical change. Think of the change from the Ptolemaic world system to the Copernican, or from Newtonian mechanics to Einstein’s relativity and quantum physics. What happens if we align our theology to a particular scientific theory, which is later overhauled? What will happen to our theology?

The philosopher George Santayana famously wrote that “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” I think it would be instructive at this point to look back to the past – specifically to the Galileo Affair. This event is most commonly viewed as a conflict between science and religion, but there are alternative interpretations. One is that the conflict was between two types of “science” - Aristotelianism and the new mechanism/Copernicanism. A few hundred years earlier, St Thomas Aquinas had Christianised the newly rediscovered Aristotelian natural philosophy. As Aristotelianism was so closely linked with Catholic theology, it was difficult for the Church to give it up when it was challenged. Attacks on Aristotelianism were viewed as attacks on Catholicism itself.

Galileo was aware of this point. In a comment added to his own copy of the Dialogue on the Great World Systems, he wrote:

Take note, theologians, that in your desire to make matters of faith out of propositions relating to the fixity of the sun and earth you run the risk of eventually having to condemn as heretics those who would declare the earth to stand still and the sun to change position – eventually, I say, at such a time as it might be physically or logically proved that the earth moves and the sun stands still.

- Note added by Galileo in the preliminary leaves of his copy of Dialogue on the Great World Systems, 1632

Similarly, Thomas Burnet (British cosmologist and theologian), wrote:

’Tis a dangerous thing to ingage the authority of Scripture in disputes about the Natural World, in opposition to Reason; lest Time, which brings all things to light, should discover that to be evidently false which we had made Scripture to assert.
- The Sacred Theory of the Earth, 1691

I wonder if we could be facing something similar with Darwinism today. On the one hand, if we reject it entirely, it doesn’t look good for Christianity if evidence keeps mounting for it. On the other hand, if we work too hard to align Genesis and evolution, what happens if the theory of evolution is overthrown? Even Richard Dawkins, the arch anti-Christian evolutionist, acknowledges that this is a possibility:

Darwin may be triumphant at the end of the twentieth century, but we must acknowledge the possibility that new facts may come to light which will force our successors of the twenty-first century to abandon Darwinism or modify it beyond recognition.4

I’m not sure what the solution is here – or even if there is one – I’m just tossing out a few ideas for consideration!5


Belief Forming, Part 2 – Defusing Attacks on Christianity

We come now to the third type of apologetics – defusing attacks on Christianity. It is here that I think science, but more particularly the history, philosophy and sociology of science, might be useful.

For some scientists and science writers – most notably Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett – science has replaced religion. Science is all there is, and now that we’re “grown up”, there is no need for childish superstitions. By being informed on issues relating to science, I think we can challenge the worldview of scientific materialism. It is here that the history, philosophy and sociology of science might be particularly useful.

Take the example of the Oxford scientist and theologian Alister McGrath. In his recent book, Dawkins’ God, McGrath mentions the history and philosophy of science as a factor in his changing attitude to science, which in turn enabled him to rethink his previously critical attitude to Christianity. He writes:

Issues such as the underdetermination of theory by data, radical theory change in the history of science, the difficulties in devising a ‘crucial experiment,’ and the enormously complex issues associated with determining what was the ‘best explanation’ of a given set of observations crowded in on me, muddying what I had taken to be the clear, still water of scientific truth.6

The sociology of science is something that hasn’t been used much in Christian apologetics, as far as I know, but I’m inclined to think that it could have a role. Simply put, a sociological approach treats science as a human social activity. Science is what scientists do. It is not an objective search for Truth with a capital T. We cannot simply assume that it gives us unbiased access to the facts of nature.

Christian scientists tend to shy away from sociology of science, or reject it outright, perhaps because it challenges the idea of truth. I think it is possible to use it to critique science while insulating Christianity as a different type of knowledge, but I haven’t worked that out in detail yet.7 For the moment, I think it is sufficient to suggest that the sociology of science may provide a way to knock science of the pedestal that it currently occupies in our society as the sole arbiter of truth about the natural world.

So where does this leave us? Firstly, I suggest that science is something that Christians should not shy away from, as understanding more about the world we live in might help us to appreciate God’s creative power just a little more. Secondly, I am cautious about the use of science in attempting to argue for the validity of Christianity – the existence of God, the supernatural authority of the Bible – simply because science is, by definition, open to change. Christianity isn’t, and this is where one of the fundamental differences lies. Thirdly, I think that Christians should be challenging the materialist world view of science, as well as the position of authority that science occupies in our society. The history, philosophy and sociology of science cast doubt on the view of science as an entirely rational, unbiased pursuit of truth about the natural world. For this reason, I think that these more critical approaches to science could be useful in defusing attacks on Christianity.

Finally, it is important to keep these discussions in perspective. In the light of the gospel, how important is it to determine the exact relation between scientific theories and Christianity?

In his book, The Battle for the Beginning: Creationism, Evolution and the Bible, John MacArthur writes:

The battle for a true view of the beginning is not optional. Our faith and the future of our world hang on the truth about creation.

Really? Contrast with this comment from a Sydney Anglican online discussion:

My greatest problem with Creationism is that it often seems to distract from the gospel. Massive amounts of literature are produced trying to convince people of the impossibility of evolution, or the young age of the universe. I believe a straightforward proclamation of Christ crucified using the same resources would be more effective.

I'm certain that the evolution debate is similar to the heliocentric debate of a few hundred years ago. Back then there were people who genuinely believed that the Bible taught the earth was fixed and the sun revolved about it, and to deny this would undermine Christianity. Of course it didn't.8

Notes:
1. 1 Corinthians 1:20.
2. 1 Peter 3:15.
3. Elwell, Dictionary of Evangelical Theology.
4. A Devil’s Chaplain, 2003, 81. I found this quote in Alister McGrath's Dawkins' God. McGrath points out that Dawkins does seem to think that a “core Darwinism” could be isolated which might be immune to historical erosion.
5. Yes, I know that's a cop-out, but I'm still thinking these issues through!
6. Alister McGrath, Dawkins' God, 4-5.
7. Another cop out, perhaps, but I'm still working on this! I do know of one extremely eminent historian of religion and philosophy who takes this view, but unfortunately he hasn't published anything on the topic.
8. Craig, online at Sydney Anglicans.

Sad

Belinda Emmett has lost her battle with cancer at the age of 32.

Click here.

Battle of Ideas

Asking why academic freedom is important is like asking why love is important, or why it’s important to eat when you’re hungry.

Click here for an interesting article on "Young Authoritarians" and academic freedom.

And here for the Battle of Ideas.

A scientist discovers HPS

After a month or so of intensive reading in the school science library, having exhausted the works on biology, I came across a section that I had never noticed before. It was labeled "The History and Philosophy of Science" and was heavy with dust. I had little time for this sort of stuff, tending to regard it as the uninformed criticism of the certainties and simplicities of the natural sciences by those who felt threatened by them - what Dawkins would later call "truth-heckling." Philosophy, like theology, was just pointless speculation about issues that could be solved through a few decent experiments. What was the point?

...By the time I had finished reading the somewhat meagre holdings of the school library in this field, I realized that I needed to do some very serious rethinking.

Far from being half-witted obscurantism that placed unnecessary obstacles in the relentless place of scientific advance, the history and philosophy of science asked all the right questions about the reliability and limits of scientific knowledge. And they were questions that I had not faced thus far. I was like a fundamentalist Christian who suddenly discovered that Jesus had not personally written the Apostles' Creed, or a flat-earther forced to come to terms with photographs of the planet taken from space. Issues such as the underdetermination of theory by data, radical theory change in the history of science, the difficulties in devising a "crucial experiment," and the enormously complex issues associated with determining what was the "best explanation" of a given set of observations crowded in on me, muddying what I had taken to be the clear, still water of scientific truth.

Things turned out to be rather more complicated than I had realized. My eyes had been opened, and I knew there was no going back to the simplistic take on the sciences I had once known. Like most people at that stage in their education, I had enjoyed the beauty and innocence of a childlike attitude to the sciences, and secretly longed to remain in that secure place. Indeed, I think that part of me deeply wished that I had never picked up that book, never asked those awkward questions, and never questioned the simplicities of my scientific youth. But there was no going back. I had stepped through a door, and could not escape the new world I had now entered.

Alister McGrath, Dawkins' God, pp. 4-5.

Galileo on speed?

It took Galileo 16 years to master the universe. You have one night. It seems unfair. The genius had all that time. While you have a few short hours to learn sun spots from your satellites before the dreaded astronomy exam. If Galileo had used Vivarin, maybe he could have mastered the solar system faster too.

Advert for stimulant in student newspaper, Daily Philadelphian, 6 December 1990.

Separation

The separation of state and church must be complemented by the separation of state and science, that most revent, most aggressive, and most dogmatic religious institution.

Paul Feyerabend, Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge (1975), 295.

Books I read in October 2006

1. Neil Hanson, The Dreadful Judgement: The True Story of the Great Fire of London

True story? Hmm. It's a narrative of the events of the great fire of London based on manuscripts, letters and other archival material. I'm always uneasy about these kinds of claims to "Truth". However, it was quite an entertaining read, though the description of what happened to the man suspected of starting the fire was rather gruesome.


2. Steve Fuller, Kuhn vs Popper: The Struggle for the Soul of Science.

I don't think a chapter each night before bed is the best way to read Fuller... I did enjoy the anecdotes, and I was inspired to read all of Fuller's Thomas Kuhn: A Philosophical History for Our Times - a book in which he compares Kuhn to the main character in Being There (I didn't realise how insulting that was until I saw the movie!) I guess I shouldn't have been surprised that Fuller came down on the side of Popper, though I was a little struck by his support for Popperian philosophy of science. This is the kind of book I generally need to read twice to fully grasp!

3. Alister McGrath, Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life.

I haven't read much of McGrath's work, which is perhaps surprising. After reading this book, I am certainly compelled to read more. McGrath's critique of Dawkins is gracious but direct. He takes on Dawkins on his own ground - rational argument - and I think McGrath comes out on top. I'll let you know for sure once I've read Dawkins' latest! McGrath primarily challenges Dawkins' view of religion, arguing that it is nothing like what most religious people subscribe to, and whether atheism necessarily follows from Darwinian Evolution (a resounding 'no', in case you were wondering!) I'm fascinated by this quote from Dawkins in the Times Literary Supplement:

Alister McGrath's book Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life does a fair and sophisticated job of summarising my position.

I should try to seek out the entire article - it would be interesting to read Dawkins' detailed responses to McGrath's critique. In the meantime, I can fully recommend McGrath's book - it is absolutely excellent.

Next on the reading list:

• Michael Ruse, Can A Darwinian Be A Christian?
• Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
• Patrick Dillon, The Last Revolution: 1688 and the Creation of the Modern World

This is incredible!

Click here.

What The Sea Wants, The Sea Will Have

I like it. I like it a lot.

Haunted?

One need not be a chamber to be haunted;
One need not be a house;
The brain has corridors surpassing
Material place.

— Emily Dickinson

I wonder if that explains all my very strange dreams?

Happy Reformation Day!!

From Tim Challies, the most famous Christian blogger (according to Craig):

October 31 will mark the 489th anniversary of the day that Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the church at Wittenburg. In so doing he struck a match, beginning a fire that quickly spread throughout Europe and throughout the world. Having become increasingly disillusioned with the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, and in particular the sale of indulgences, Luther wrote his Theses to try to begin the process of reform. While he was unable to bring reform to the church, he did trigger the Protestant Reformation by rediscovering the Gospel - the good news of salvation by grace through faith. The Reformation had profound influence in politics, art, literature and theology - while it was at its heart a Christian movement, it impacted all areas of society. That seemingly insignificant act is, in reality, one of the defining points of history. It is a shame that the day has largely been forgotten in favor of what is now the year's most popular day, Halloween (Halloween is, after all, one of the few holidays that our society can celebrate without shame and without feeling politically incorrect).

An interesting article on Halloween.

Wikiproblems?

Academics are divided on the value of Wikipedia.

Click here.

Oh.

I've been quite enjoying P!nk's latest single, "U & ur hand". I must have heard it about 10 times, mostly at the gym, before I actually figured out what the title was referring to.

Hmm.

Unintelligent Design?

Robyn Williams is speaking at UNSW tomorrow night. Intelligent Design is described as "wilfully ignorant." From what is quoted below, from the UNSW Faculty of Science website, does anyone think Robyn Williams has a good understanding of Christian theology of creation? Or is he perhaps wilfully ignorant of what he is trying to refute? And that subtitle - "Why God isn't as smart as she thinks she is" - just sounds like an attempt to be controversial without having to actually make an argument...

Intelligent Design has found its way into the headlines, has been spruiked by Dr Brendan Nelson and is now trying to slink into our schools. So where did this wilfully ignorant sibling of creationism and its anti-scientific arguments spring from? And why is it refusing to go away?

ABC science broadcaster, Robyn Williams has taken on the monster of creationism posing as science in his new book, Unintelligent Design.

Described as a "witty and wicked" debunking of Intelligent Design, he argues that if God really created the universe she made a hash of it. Why, for instance, do female koalas have a downward-opening pouch? And why are humans plagued by sinus blockages, piles, bad breath, farting and a useless appendix?

Robyn will speak about his new book and take questions at UNSW from 6pm, Thursday 26 October. He also will be signing copies of his book.

Robyn Williams presents science programs on ABC radio and television. A fellow of the Australian Academy of Science, he was a visiting fellow at Balliol College, Oxford, and is now visiting professor in the Faculty of Science at UNSW.

Venue:
Law Building, main lecture theatre, Room G04 (map reference, F8)

Nothing new under the sun

I don't think I've ever seen this picture before, but it's quite cool. It's graffiti, dating from the 2nd century AD, making fun of someone called Alexamenos for worshipping the crucified Jesus.

See Ben's post here for more.

Communicating science in the early 20th century

From the library of the Royal Society of London.

In the 1920s three men set about writing a popular science book that was "accessible to ordinary busy people". This three volume book was entitled "The Science of Life" and the three authors, Herbert George Wells, Sir Julian Huxley FRS and George Philip Wells FRS, were well-known household names at the time.

The senior member of the trio was HG Wells, author of science fiction titles such as "The War of the Worlds" (1898) and "The Invisible Man" (1897). He was joined by Sir Julian Huxley, Fellow of the Royal Society, grandson of Wells' biology teacher TH Huxley FRS and brother of Aldous Huxley, another great science fiction writer. The third author was George Philip Wells, son of Herbert George, who would later become a Fellow for his work in Zoology, and also a broadcaster for the BBC's Brains Trust.

The illustration above was used to illustrate their chapter on the nervous mechanism and the brain.

Apples and oranges

From the Briefing.

Bending the gender roles

23 October 2006 AD

(From Joshua Bovis, one of our Briefing readers in Mount Kuring-gai, Australia.)

Those who are trying to bring women's ordination into the fore at Sydnod and have it go through all hold to the view that Paul's view of gender differences was merely first-century cultural baggage and not universal for all time.

Yet I assume that evangelicals who take this perspective would strongly disagree that homosexuality is endorsed by the Bible. So how do they argue against liberals who say, “If the church is going to ordain women to the ministry, how is one's sexual orientation relevant when gender distinctions no longer apply?”

By and large, I think that proponents of women's ordination who are evangelicals are in a paradoxical situation: when it comes to women's ordination, gender roles and distinctions are cultural; when it comes to homosexuality, the gender roles and distinctions are universal. Ironic.

Noticed by Briefing reader at 09:00 AM

I've never found this argument convincing. In fact, I don't like it at all. I've also heard arguments along the lines of, "If you allow the ordination of women, you're on a slippery slope to the ordination of homosexuals."

In the Bible, homosexuality is a sin. Being a woman is not a sin. In the Bible, the passages on homosexuality are quite clear, while some of the passages on women are among the most difficult to interpret. In the Bible, there is never a positive instance of homosexuality, while there are positive instances of women in leadership, such as Deborah, who was raised up by God to be the judge of Israel.

Any thoughts?

Black & White

When I started this blog, I decided to retain some degree of anonymity. I haven't made my full name or email address public, though there is probably enough information on the blog to figure out who I am, if anyone could actually be bothered. I guess I have a somewhat suspicious and paranoid mindset. My life may be an open magazine, but I don't want everyone to read it. Or, at least, I don't want everyone who reads it to know exactly who I am, unless they already know me!! So I've also refrained from posting any photos of myself on here. However, I like these photos that my brother took, so I've decided to break any rule I had against it.

Two weeks ago I had the honour of being a bridesmaid for one of my closest and oldest friends. It was a beautiful wedding, and a special experience to be celebrating with two people so committed to God and to each other. Here's a picture of me outside the church. I nearly forgot to take off my sunglasses, and no one thought to point it out to me...



I think this photo captures how clucky I've become over the last few years. I was never particularly keen on holding babies - they always cried and drooled - but here, I was even prepared to risk baby drool on my bridesmaid dress to have a chance to cuddle little Joshua. He is an adorable little baby, though, and very content to be cuddled. And he didn't drool. Good boy. You can see my lovely sister-in-law, Tegan, holding my bouquet, and Scott, Joshua's dad, just behind me. A special hello to Scott, Deb and Joshua!!

One of my favourite hymns (that we're allowed to sing at church)

Before the throne of God above
I have a strong, a perfect plea,
A great High Priest whose name is Love,
Who ever lives and pleads for me.
My name is graven on his hands,
My name is written on his heart;
I know that while in heaven he stands
No tongue can bid me thence depart.

When Satan tempts me to despair,
And tells me of the guilt within,
Upward I look and see him there
Who made an end to all my sin.
Because the sinless Saviour died,
My sinful soul is counted free;
For God the Just is satisfied
To look on him and pardon me.

Behold him there! The risen Lamb,
My perfect, spotless righteousness;
The great unchangeable I AM,
The King of glory and of grace!
One with himself I cannot die,
My soul is purchased with his blood;
My life is hid with Christ on high,
With Christ, my Saviour and my God.

It's life, mum, but not as we know it.

An interesting opinion piece on the challenges of motherhood here.

Thanks to Craig for the link.

My thoughts, which I also posted on Craig's blog:

That's a really good article. I like the way it acknowledges that both mothers and fathers need to do things for each other, and I liked what Alison Osborne said about wanting to be a hands-on mum, but not wanting to be with the children every minute of every day. I don't have kids, but I would like to some day. One of my biggest worries is "cabin fever" - I think I'd go crazy being a stay-at-home mum all the time.

I also think it's good to acknowledge that motherhood is not easy, in contrast to some feminists, who think that stay-at-home mums are betraying the sisterhood, and perhaps in contrast to some conservative Christians who think that women should be in the home with the kids, but who perhaps don't think about how difficult that can be.

Faith and Reason

The most comments I've had on my blog lately were about tea and coffee. Hmm. I'm trying for something a bit more controversial here, and, I hope, a bit more important.

I've managed to start a bit of a discussion on Nick's blog about faith and reason. I'd be interested to know people's thoughts on the issue. Are faith and reason opposites? Can a person have reasons for their faith, or does faith necessarily entail a rejection of reason? Is faith "believing something you know isn't true"?

As Christians, how do we deal with verses which suggest that we should have reasons for our hope, as well as verses which suggest that faith is not a matter of "the wisdom of the world"? For example,

1 Peter 3:14-16 - But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, 15but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; 16yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.

1 Corinthians 1:17-25 - For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. 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'm interested in people's thoughts. I'd also be interested to know whether or not Nick thinks I'm irrational! (You can tell the truth, Nick - I won't be offended!!)

Coffee is good

And that's all I have to say about that.

The Rules

Christine has some very interesting thoughts on dating here.

I'm kind of fascinated by relationship advice, for the purpose of humour or sociological study, though I have sought Christian relationship advice at certain times because I really had no idea what to do in a relationship!

There's a wide range of Christian dating advice floating around the place, but most secular perspectives are extremely manipulative. E.g. the famous "Rules for Finding Mr Right", such as:

1. Be a creature unlike any other
2. Don't talk to a man first (and don't ask him to dance)
3. Don't stare at men or talk too much
4. Don't meet him halfway or go dutch on a date
5. Don't call him and rarely return his calls
6. Always end phone calls first
7. If he doesn't call, he's not that interested. Period!
8. Don't accept a Saturday night date after Wednesday
9. Fill up your time before the date
10. Always end the date first

I.e. no matter what you feel, "treat 'em mean to keep 'em keen." Even if you aren't bombarded by invitations for dinner, act as if you are, because that will keep men more interested.

Another classic is the Surrendered Wife concept. My sister-in-law received this book as a gift once, and it's filed in the humour section of her library. The basic idea is that the way to intimacy in marriage is for the wife to completely surrender herself to her husband. Sound similar to the Christian view of submission to male headship in marriage? Well, not quite. It's not submission out of duty or belief that this is the way God intended things to be. It's submission for personal gain. And I think it's taken too far. Even if your husband misses a turn-off on the freeway, you shouldn't tell him. Instead, you should trust that he'll figure it out for himself soon enough. Perhaps, but isn't it possible to point out something like this without being a nag? And surely the husband should be man enough to accept that he's made a mistake? I think it's a little crazy...

Another interesting one is Jane Austen's Guide to Dating. There's an excerpt here, things like:

• DO
• Listen to your own inner voice. If a man looks great on paper, but there's simply something about him that doesn't work for you, don't force yourself against your instincts into dating him. It will never work out.
• Learn to trust yourself. If a man seems too good to be true, he probably is. Don't be so swayed by compliments or courtship that you deliberately blind yourself to faults of his that may mean the relationship has no future.
• Keep yourself grounded. What really happens when someone sweeps you off your feet? You lose your balance and he's still standing up. Is that what you want to happen at the start of a relationship?
• DON'T
• Be overpersuaded by your friends. You're the one who has to date him, not them. Of course, your friends will be right if they try to put you off an addict, cheater or axe murderer. But don't be pushed into a relationship you don't feel is right for you just because your friends are keen on the person ‑- and don't break up with someone you like and who treats you well because he doesn't immediately jell with your friends.
• Be self-destructive. Don't be so desperate for a relationship that you go against the healthy self-protective instincts that we all possess. Learn to listen to and be guided by them.
• Be fooled by flattery. Be wary of someone who tries to overwhelm you with compliments. How did he get to be so good at that? By doing the same with a lot of other people. You'll end up just another mark on his well notched bedpost.

OK, maybe that's not all bad. But I remember one point I was surprised by, though I can't quote it exactly because I've lent the book to a friend. It was something along the lines of "Don't rush into sleeping together. You may want to wait until the second or third date." Hmm. I can't imagine Jane Austen giving that advice!

I like Christine's thoughts on this issue much better!

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.