A Deadly Certitude

Steven Weinberg's review of Dawkins.

Le Grand Content

Thanks to Tim.

Am I a heretic?

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

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

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

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

Past the 200 mark...

Very exciting.

Zadie Smith on writing and reading

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

Read the whole article here.

Very scary

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

Click here.

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

Click here.

The Thrill of the Chaste

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

Religion and politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Joyce of Science

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

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

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

A question about Merton drew this response:

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

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

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

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

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

F.A. Muller
Amsterdam

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

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

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

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

No willpower

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

ROMANS!!

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

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

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

I need to vent...

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are deer pants?

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

November and December 2006

Books bought:

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

Books read:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy Feast of the 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.

- St Augustine

A Tribute to my Supervisor

If I was creative, I would compose a poem. But I'm not, so I won't. I will say that my PhD supervisor is absolutely wonderful. Here's part of an email I sent him this afternoon after he read my conference abstracts and gave feedback within half an hour of my sending them to him (and I realised that I'd never explicitly thanked him for everything he does - I just give him a nice bottle of red each Christmas):

Have I ever told you what a fantastic supervisor you are? Honestly, I'm so glad that back when I was thinking about doing honours I decided to work with you instead of [another lecturer in the school who shall remain nameless in the blogosphere]. He's a nice guy and all, and we have some interesting (sometimes heated) debates, but he wouldn't have given me anything close to the level of support that you have provided. I am so grateful for your advice and ideas.

I think I've come up with a new natural theological argument: choice of supervisor as evidence of God's providence!

His response:

Well, all I can say is "Allah be praised!" that your supervision is satisfactory.

I'm not sure why exactly, but that's his latest catch-phrase...

Hurrah!

This morning at the gym I bench-pressed my personal best, "with maximum muscle recruitment" according to my trainer. I also achieved my personal best with chin-ups (assisted chin-ups - I'm not that strong yet!) and a hover (using stomach muscles). Very exciting stuff!

Foolproof

Socrates, drawing figures in the sand, undertakes to coach an untutored slave boy, helping him to prove a special case of the Pythagorean theorem. I paraphrase very loosely:
Socrates: Here is a square with sides of length 2 and area equal to 4. If we double the area, to 8 units, what will the length of a side be?

Boy: Umm, 4?

Socrates: Does 4 x 4 = 8?

Boy: Okay, maybe it's 3.

Socrates: Does 3 x 3 = 8?

Boy: I give up.

Socrates: Observe this line from corner to corner, which the erudite among us call a diagonal. If we erect a new square on the diagonal, note that one-half of the original square makes up one-fourth of the new square, and so the total area of the new square must be double that of the original square. Therefore the length of the diagonal is the length we were seeking, is it not?

Boy: Whatever.

At this point I trust we are all rooting for the kid. I would like to be able to report that the dialogue continues with the boy taking the initiative, saying something like, "Okay, dude, so what's the length of your erudite diagonal? It's not 4 and it's not 3, so what is it, exactly?" Alas, Plato reports no such challenge from the slave boy.

More here.

A headache for clergy?

Click here.

Surely you can't be serious!

I listen to feminists and all these radical gals - most of them are failures. They've blown it. Some of them have been married, but they married some Casper Milquetoast who asked permission to go to the bathroom. These women just need a man in the house. That's all they need. Most of the feminists need a man to tell them what time of day it is and to lead them home. And they blew it and they're mad at all men. Feminists hate men. They're sexist. They hate men - that's their problem.

Jerry Falwell

[Feminism is] a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.

Pat Robertson

I do not like spiders

Especially big brown ones that scurry across my windscreen and resist my attempts to squash them with the wipers. I'm quite happy for them to be alive outside somewhere, in a tree or even near my front door, but it is unacceptable for them to be crawling on my car while I'm driving.

Love my life

I'm feeling really good today - excited about possibilities and only a little daunted by what lies ahead.

Thanks for praying!

Sold!!

I'm there!

Progress Review

As part of my annual review, I had to fill out a 3-page form (much shorter than last year), listing things like the aims of my research, goals to be achieved in the next year etc. One section asked for my progress since the last review 12 months ago:

I have completed drafts of two chapters, bringing the total number of chapters drafted to four. I have also made significant progress on the draft of a fifth chapter, which I aim to complete by the end of the year.

My chapter outline has developed since the last review. It now consists of two parts: the first being theoretical and conceptual, while the second provides the empirical case studies (which I have now decided upon) to support and illustrate the theory. One of the chapters I drafted this year will now become an introduction to the second part of the thesis.

I have presented papers at two international conferences as well as a number of talks at UNSW (see further details below). With these presentations, I gained positive and useful feedback on the theoretical and conceptual part of my thesis.

As part of my continuing formal theological education, I have completed two more subjects at Moore Theological College: Doctrine of God and Biblical Theology.

I have also further developed my professional skills by tutoring in three different subjects (GENS4010 - Science and Religion; GENT0902 - Witches, Quacks, and Lunatics; and SCIF1110 - Perspectives in Medical Science: The History of Medical Science) and by working as a research assistant to Nicolas Rasmussen.

I also had to list written reports, publications, exhibitions/performances, conference presentations or other achievements in the last 12 months:

"The Dynamics of Natural Theological Discourse," paper presented at the annual conference of the Australasian Association for the History, Philosophy and Social Studies of Science, University of Otago, NZ, December 6, 2005. I was also awarded the Ian Langham prize for the best student presentation.

In December 2006, I was invited to join the Centre for Apologetic Scholarship and Education (CASE), New College, UNSW, as a CASE Scholar. This position included a financial grant and the opportunity to meet regularly and share ideas with other academics who are exploring the significance of Christianity for their work.

"Theology, Natural Philosophy, and Natural Theology: A Dynamic Relationship," paper presented at the annual conference of the British Society for the History of Science, University of Canterbury, UK, July 8, 2006.

Attended two-week summer course on Science and Religion at the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, St Edmund's College, University of Cambridge, July 16-29, 2006. At this course I gained a broader understanding of current debates in science and religion, and made contacts among some of the most important scholars in the field.

"A Kaleidoscopic Presentation," short talk presented at the GRISSH Seminar for Postgraduate Research Students on How to Give a Brilliant Conference Paper, September 26, 2006.

"Natural Theology and Christian Apologetics," presented as part of the CASE weekly lectures on Christianity and Contemporary Thought, October 3, 2006.

"Science-Based Apologetics: Opportunities and Pitfalls," paper presented at CASE Scholars Consultation on Apologetics and the Disciplines, New College, November 10, 2006.

I have been invited to contribute an article on Natural Theology for The Science and Religion Primer, to be published by Baker Academic. The Primer is designed to be a cross between an encyclopedia, annotated bibliography and survey introduction to key historic and contemporary concepts and persons relevant to the science & religion dialogue. I will be submitting my article by the end of this year.

I was also invited to present two lectures on science and religion for a course on Dan Brown and the Da Vinci Code at the Macquarie Christian Studies Institute, Macquarie University. Unfortunately, due to a lack of enrolments, this course did not go ahead.

Apparently, the school has had some students who have left this section blank, so I guess I shouldn't have been worried so much. I really thought that this would be standard. Actually, I was particularly worried because I've only presented two conference papers in the 3 years I've been working on my PhD, and I haven't yet had anything published or even submitted to a journal (this was one of the goals I set down at my last review.) I honestly thought that most, if not all, other PhD students would also be doing these kinds of things, but maybe they're not!

That's quite a revelation to me. No wonder I've been so busy!

P.S. I'm not quoting all this stuff to show off - honestly, I'm genuinely surprised!

The Rain

I will try to break every habit that holds me
I will try to make everyone happy again
I will try to take anything you can throw at me
I will let the rain come in

I will try to face everything that scares me
I will try to trace everywhere that I've been
I will try to wait for all of the hearts to be mended
I will let the rain come in

I will try to breathe deeper than all of the oceans
I will try to see the battle instead of the win
I will try to leave all that I've wasted behind me
I will let the rain come in

And if I try too hard, or maybe not hard enough
I'll be the one who says it's all gonna be OK
And if it all falls down well it's never gonna really matter
Because the rain washes everything away

Kasey Chambers

On a more positive note...

I had my annual progress review this morning, and it went quite well.

The review panel was very pleased with Lara's progress, and recommended that she focuses on creating conditions for uninterrupted writing in the next 10 months.

This means that I'm supposed to be working solely on my PhD for long stretches of time with as few distractions as possible. So, I doubt I'll be doing any Moore College subjects next year. It was also suggested that I probably shouldn't be doing any tutoring. However, I've already offered to continue tutoring the online Science and Religion subject, and I would like to continue that. It's my area of research, and it's quite fun interacting with the students. I got some interesting comments this year - I'll have to post them sometime.

The money from tutoring would also come in handy. My scholarship expires in February, and while I'm applying for a 6 month extension, there's no guarantee that I'll get it. Plus, I want to go back to England in July for 2 conferences, and there's no guarantee of funding for that either. And finally, whether I finish my PhD in September 2007 or not, I'm still not going to get a full time job until 2008, but my scholarship will be gone by then.

Hmm... Guess I'll have to reconsider my book buying habit...

In a bad place...

I am not feeling very happy right now. I have a lot of work to finish by the end of the year, and I am running out of time. Usually deadlines give me motivation to work hard, but at the moment, I seem to be seriously lacking in energy and stamina. It doesn't help that I've been battling bad headaches for nearly a week now, as this has put me even further behind. I have my annual progress review tomorrow. It shouldn't be too bad, and I've already completed all the paper work for it, but I'm still looking forward to it being over.

I was aiming to finish chapter 6 by Christmas, but that's looking unlikely. So far, I have written 9,000 words, but it's all in point form and I still have a long way to go. Chapters 4 and 5 need to be done early next year so I can start reworking the earlier chapters and writing the introduction and conclusion.

By the end of the year (which really means by next Thursday) I also need to write a proposal for a conference paper and an 800 word article on natural theology, including some mention of John Ray. And then there's Christmas...

I'm so stressed and exhausted that I could just curl up in a corner and cry.

C.S. Lewis on Christian Apologetics

What we want is not more little books about Christianity, but more little books by Christians on other subjects - with their Christianity latent.

"Christian Apologetics" in God in the Dock.

A nice summary of what CASE is all about, I think.

C.S. Lewis on Christmas

Three things go by the name of Christmas. One is a religious festival. This is important and obligatory for Christians; but as it can be of no interest to anyone else, I shall naturally say no more about it here. The second (it has complex historical connections with the first, but we needn’t go into them) is a popular holiday, an occasion for merry-making and hospitality. If it were my business to have a “view” on this, I should say that I much approve of merry-making. But what I approve of much more is everybody minding his own business. I see no reason why I should volunteer views as to how other people should spend their own money in their own leisure among their own friends. It is highly probable that they want my advice on such matters as little as I want theirs. But the third thing called Christmas is unfortunately everyone’s business.

I mean of course the commercial racket. The interchange of presents was a very small ingredient in the older English festivity. Mr. Pickwick took a cod with him to Dingley Dell; the reformed Scrooge ordered a turkey for his clerk; lovers sent love gifts; toys and fruit were given to children. But he idea that not only all friends but even all acquaintances should give one another presents, or at least send one another cards, is quite modern and has been forced upon us by the shopkeepers. Neither of these circumstances is in itself a reason for condemning it. I condemn it on the following grounds.

1. It gives on the whole much more pain than pleasure. You have only to stay over Christmas with a family who seriously try to ‘keep’ it (in its third, or commercial, aspect) in order to see that the thing is a nightmare. Long before December 25th everyone is worn out—physically worn out by weeks of daily struggle in overcrowded shops, mentally worn out by the effort to remember all the right recipients for merry-making; much less (if they should want to) to take part in a religious act. They look far more as if there had been a long illness in the house.

2. Most of it is involuntary. The modern rule is that anyone can force you to give him a present by sending you a quite unprovoked present of his own. It is almost a blackmail. Who has not heard the wail of despair, and indeed of resentment, when at the last moment, just as everyone hoped that the nuisance was over for one more year, the unwanted gift from Mrs. Busy (whom we hardly remember) flops unwelcomed through he letter-box, and back to the dreadful shops one of us has to go?

3. Things are given as presents which no mortal every bought for himself—gaudy and useless gadgets, ‘novelties’ because no one was every fool enough to make their like before. Have we really no better use for materials and for human skill and time than to spend them on all this rubbish?

4. The nuisance. For after all, during the racket we still have all our ordinary and necessary shopping to do, and the racket trebles the labour of it.

We are told that the whole dreary business must go on because it is good for trade. It is in fact merely one annual symptom of that lunatic condition of our country, and indeed of the world, in which everyone lives by persuading everyone else to buy things. I don’t know the way out. But can it really be my duty to buy and receive masses of junk every winter just to help the shopkeepers? If the worst comes to the worst I’d sooner give them money for nothing and write it off as a charity. For nothing? Why, better for nothing than for a nuisance.

God in the Dock, pp. 304-305.

Crucifying Christmas

An interesting article from the UK Telegraph. The comments are even more interesting. This one, for example:

I am an aetheist (sic) and a humanist (meaning: I don't believe in fairy tales) and I celebrate christmas because I appreciate the eternal message of kindness and hope which it embodies.

Hmm. I don't believe in fairy tales either!

Oh, the horror!

Thanks to Nixter!

The Choice

An interesting article from Matthias Media's Couldn't Help Noticing.

Scary Mary

Quote

After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with colour, bountiful with life. Within decades we must close our eyes again. Isn't it a noble, an enlightened way of spending our brief time in the sun, to work at understanding the universe and how we have come to wake up in it? This is how I answer when I am asked -- as I am surprisingly often -- why I bother to get up in the mornings.

— Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow

Have you seen the light?

Simone's post reminded me of these classics. While looking them up on Google, I found a whole range of science and philosophy ones too... stay tuned for the next dose!

How many does it take to change a light bulb?

• Anglo-Catholics
• None. They always use candles instead.
• Atheists
• One. But they are still in darkness.
• Baptists
• At least 15. One to change the light bulb, and three committees to approve the change and decide who brings the potato salad.
• Brethren
• Change?????
• Calvinists
• None. God has predestined when the lights will be on; or, None. If God wants it changed He will do it Himself.
• Charismatics
• One, since his/her hands are in the air anyway.
  
• Three. One to cast it out and two to catch it when it falls
• Evangelicals
• Evangelicals do not change light bulbs. They simply read out the instructions and hope the light bulb will decide to change itself.
• Liberals
• 10, as they need to hold a debate into whether or not the lightbulb exists. Even if they can agree upon the existence of the lightbulb they may not go ahead and change it for fear of alienating those who use fluorescent tubes.
• Lutherans
• None. Lutherans don't believe in change.
• Methodists
• Undetermined. Whether your light is bright, dull, or completely out, you are loved -- you can be a light bulb, turnip bulb, or tulip bulb. Churchwide lighting service is planned for Sunday, August 19. Bring bulb of your choice and a covered dish.
• Mormons
• Five. One man to change the bulb, and four wives to tell him how to do it.
• Pentecostals
• 10, one to change it and 9 others to pray against the spirit of darkness.
• Presbyterians
• None. Lights will go on and off at predestined times.
• TV evangelists
• One. But for the message of hope to continue to go forth, send in your donation today.
• Unitarians
  
• We choose not to make a statement either in favor of or against the need for a light bulb. However, if in your own journey you have found that light bulbs work for you, that is fine. You are invited to write a poem or compose a modern dance about your personal relationship with your light bulb, and present it next month at our annual light bulb Sunday service, in which we will explore a number of light bulb traditions, including incandescent, fluorescent, three-way, long-life and tinted, all of which are equally valid paths to luminescence.

Blogger cannot open this link...

Possible causes:

Baptist explanation: There must be sin in your life. Everyone else opened it fine.

Presbyterian explanation: It's not God's will for you to open this link.

Word of Faith explanation: You lack the faith to open this link. Your negative words have prevented you from realizing this link's fulfillment.

Charismatic explanation: Thou art loosed! Be commanded to OPEN!

Unitarian explanation: All links are equal, so if this link doesn't work for you, feel free to experiment with other links that might bring you joy and fulfillment.

Buddhist explanation: .........................

Episcopalian explanation: Are you saying you have something against homosexuals?

Christian Science explanation: There really is no link.

Atheist explanation: The only reason you think this link exists is because you needed to invent it.

Church counselor's explanation: And what did you feel when the link would not open?

h/t Simone.

Super Mario - We're Not Gonna Take It

Very cute.

Healthy Accountability

Donna and I have a new blog called Healthy Accountability (because I couldn't think of a better name). We're both trying to eat more healthily and keep up exercise, so I thought it might be useful for us to have a place where we can encourage each other and keep each other accountable.

Feel free to drop by if you'd like to offer any advice or encouragement!!

Actually, I've decided to change the name to Tick Days. Healthy Accountability sounds kind of weird...

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!