Beautiful

One of my favourite songs by the Christian singer-songwriter Bethany Dillon:

I was so unique
Now I feel skin deep
Count on the makeup to cover it all
Crying myself to sleep
Because I cannot keep their attention
Thought I could be strong
But it’s killing me

Does someone hear my cry
I’m dying for new life

I want to be beautiful
And make you stand in awe
Look inside my heart
And be amazed
I want to hear you say
Who I am is quite enough
Just want to be worthy of love
And beautiful

Sometimes I wish I was someone other than me
Fighting to make the mirror happy
Trying to find whatever is missing
Won’t you help me back to glory

You make me beautiful
You make me stand in awe
You step inside my heart
And I am amazed
I love to hear You say
Who I am is quite enough
You make me worthy of love
And beautiful

And this is what Bethany Dillon has to say about why she wrote the song:

I wrote this song following a series of talks with my youth group about what it is to be a woman—how we reflect God’s glory and what our hearts desire most. “Beautiful” was both easy and tough to write. Easy because I fight those battles almost every second—“Am I enough? Do they think I’m beautiful?” – tough because it was almost shameful to admit those are often my thoughts and fears. Though it’s not something neatly packaged that I can cure, my heart is deeply burdened to just be in the struggle alongside women… to feel vulnerable together… to win the battles together… to finally come to understand that we are intensely pursued by the Strong and Rescuing Jesus—what we have wanted all along.

Judgment and Mercy

People sometimes suppose that judgment is an "Old Testament" idea, whereas in the New Testament you find only mercy. This isn't even a caricature; it's simple fiction.

Tom Wright, Romans for Everyone, Part 1, p. 29.

I hate wait

Before Christmas, I submitted an abstract for a Science and Religion conference being held in the UK in July. It would be a great conference to go to - it's my area of research; it's being held in honour of one of the foremost science and religion scholars in the world, whose work has been important in the development of my own ideas; there will be lots of other top-class scholars there, whose work I have also used extensively; it will be a great opportunity to network and share my research just before finalising my PhD thesis; and it's in England. I love England!

It's been nearly 7 weeks since the abstracts were due, and I still haven't heard whether mine has been accepted or rejected. I received an email from the organiser in early January, saying that he's received my abstract and that decisions should be made by the beginning of February. I waited until more than a week of February had passed, and sent a very nice email inquiring about when I might hear something. He said Monday. It's now Saturday. Well, in the UK, it's nearly Saturday. And I still haven't heard anything.

I'm not a very patient person, and I'm getting quite frustrated!

Maybe I could give him my word as a Spaniard? No good, he's probably known too many Spaniards...

I hate wait.

The Great Debate?

Chaser headline on the back of today's Herald:

Even worm refuses to watch Debnam-Iemma debate

I was watching it with my dad, and there wasn't even enough interest to have us making fun of the politicians (not for long, anyway). I resorted to tossing grapes at my dad.

Can I vote for Quentin Dempster?

Looking at the moon, thinking of the universe

About this time I started to read an article in a magazine, on the subject of the basic difference between the male and female habits of thought, relating chiefly to their experience of sex (the title of the article made you think it would tell a great deal more about sex than it actually did). The author was a famous New York psychiatrist, a disciple of Freud. He said that the difference between the male and female modes of through were easily illustrated by the thoughts of a boy and girl, sitting on a park bench, looking at the full moon. The boy thinks of the universe, its immensity and mystery; the girl thinks, "I must wash my hair." When I read this I was frantically upset; I had to put the magazine down. It was clear to me at once that I was not thinking as the girl thought; the full moon would never as long as I lived remind me to wash my hair... I wanted men to love me, and I wanted to think of the universe when I looked at the moon.

Alice Munro, Lives of Girls and Woman

Baptism

He pushed me down again but this time I was expecting it. I held my breath and fought him. I fought strongly and naturally, as anybody does, held down in the water, and without thinking much about who was holding me. But when he let me come up just long enough to hear him say, "Now say you'll do it," I saw his face streaming with water I had splashed over him and I felt amazement, not that I was fighting with Garnet but that anybody could have made such a mistake, to think he had real power over me. I was too amazed to be angry, I forgot to be frightened, it seemed to me impossible that he should not understand that all the powers I granted him were in play.

Alice Munro, Lives of Girls and Women

Happy Birthday Galileo!

On this day in 1564, Galileo Galilei was born at Pisa.

Galileo and the so-called "Galileo Affair" have been favourite soap-boxes of mine for quite some time. People who know me well generally know not to get me started. People who don't know me well and make the mistake of commenting on how badly the Church treated Galileo generally regret it. I'm not exactly sure when this interest of mine began, however. The earliest exposure I had to the name of Galileo, as far as I can remember, would have been a song by the Christian pop singer Amy Grant. This would have been back when I was in primary school, when I was about 10 years old. I remember going to a concert of hers - she was touring after the release of her album Heart in Motion. One of my favourite songs on the album (I still enjoy it!) is called "Galileo." It has cute lyrics:

In the year of fourteen ninety-two
When Columbus sailed the ocean blue
Had he landed on India's shore
You might never have come to knock on my door.

Who needs a rhyme or a reason?
Some dreams were made to find
So I know that I must follow

Ask me just how much I love you
You are starlight, I'm Galileo
Even on the darkest night oh
I will find the shining light of our love.

I'm not sure if I found out much more about Galileo during primary school. The next time I encountered his story, as far as I can remember, was in my first year at university. I was enrolled in a Bachelor of Medical Science, but I decided to take some Science and Technology Studies subjects as electives. (It sounded more interesting than physics, psychology or computer science, and it turned out to be one of the best decisions I've ever made!) The first subject I took was called Cosmos and Culture, and it was an overview of the history of science from the ancient Greeks to the 20th century. It was all very new to me, but I was loving it. We got to the Copernican Revolution and Galileo the week before our major essay was due, but I was fascinated enough to abandon my research on Aristotle in order to write about whether the Copernican Revolution was indeed a revolution. I'm still amused that I relied heavily on Thomas Kuhn's 1957 classic The Copernican Revolution without knowing anything of its significance or that of the follow-up, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. But that's another story.

The main thing I remember hearing about Galileo is this class was how the Church had condemned him as a heretic on the basis of just one short passage from Scripture:

Joshua 10:12-14 - At that time Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD gave the Amorites over to the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon." And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day. There has been no day like it before or since, when the LORD obeyed the voice of a man, for the LORD fought for Israel.

The message I received from this class was the Galileo was condemned as a heretic because the Church insisted on a literal interpretation of this passage. Of course the sun moves! Joshua wouldn't have told the sun to stop moving if it had actually been the earth that was moving - he would have told the earth to stop spinning! And because of this, science and religion became mortal enemies, as they still are. I remember thinking how stupid the Church was, and how it was responsible for the conflict between science and religion, just because they insisted on a literal interpretation of a verse that was obviously not meant to be taken as a scientific statement.

Such was my initial understanding of the "Galileo Affair." I was 18 years old, a first-year university student who had not yet even embarked on my career as an aspiring historian of science. I was still planning to study medicine to become an anaesthesiologist at that stage! But just as my continuing studies convinced me that I should head down a different path, so they also showed me that the "Galileo Affair" was not as straightforward as it first seemed.

While Galileo is often referred to as the "father of modern science," it is difficult to classify him as a scientist, or even a natural philosopher, as the people who studied the natural world were known at that time. Galileo was primarily a mathematician, although he sought the title of "philosopher" as they were more highly paid.

Galileo excelled at cultivating favour with the aristocracy, through his performances in debates, dedications of important works, and gifts of instruments such as the telescope. Contrary to popular belief, Galileo did not invent the telescope, nor was he the first person to use it in looking at the heavens - just perhaps the most outspoken! However good Galileo was at increasing his public profile, he was also very good at making enemies. His performances in debates often left his opponents looking stupid - a good thing for his patrons, but not when he needed crucial support from the academic community.

In his short book, Galileo, Stillman Drake argued that Galileo's condemnation by the Inquisition in 1633 was not a result of his defiance of the Church, but was rather caused by the hostility of contemporary philosophers. We are so conditioned to view the "Galileo Affair" as the result of an inevitable conflict between science and religion that this may come as a shock, but this is not a new perspective. Drake's book was first released in 1980, though the 2001 "Very Short Introduction" edition still labelled this as "a startling reinterpretation of the evidence."

If I go into too much detail here, this post will become far too long. I suspect that many people have already stopped reading! But here's a few points, just to whet your appetite.

We need to remember that this was a troubled time for the Church. The Reformation had challenged the authority of the Catholic Church, particularly with regard to the interpretation of Scripture. However, Pope Urban VIII, the one who eventually unleashed the Inquisition on to Galileo, was initially a huge fan. He even wrote a poem about Galileo, and gave him permission to write the Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems which eventually landed Galileo in hot water. Galileo made the mistake of putting the Pope's favourite argument into the mouth of Simplicio - the character in the dialogue who is indeed shown to be a simpleton. Urged on by Galileo's philosophical enemies, the Pope was not pleased. Even Cardinal Bellarmine - arch-Counter-Reformationist - who was intimately involved in the early years of the "Galileo Affair" but who had passed away before the 1633 trial, was prepared to at least consider reinterpreting certain passages of the Bible, so long as there was good reason... but Galileo had no real evidence.

Wait a minute! No evidence? Didn't Galileo have his telescope? Common sense? The scientific method?? Well... that's going to take too long to explain thoroughly. Stay tuned for details on where you can find out more!

So there was a context of religious upheaval, and the Church was anxious to retain its authority. But what is "the Church"? There was no such monolithic institution. For starters, there were the Protestant and Catholic churches (emphasis on the plural), and even within each of these, there were differing viewpoints. And the idea of "the Church" suppressing science? What is this "science" you speak of? There was "natural philosophy" - a mode of natural inquiry much broader than what we view science as - and there were many varieties of this as well. And there were the mechanical sciences (again, emphasis on the plural) which weren't considered to be on the same explanatory level as natural philosophy. A conflict between science and religion? Which science? Which religion? You can see how it gets complicated.

It's probably more accurate to view the Galileo Affair as a conflict between "old science" and "new science" than between "science" and "religion." The academic establishment of the day, which happened to be closely aligned with the Catholic Church, but by no means homogeneous theologically, resisted Galileo's attempts to change the accepted view of how the universe worked. And since Galileo's evidence was rather less than compelling, perhaps they were the really "scientific" or "rational" ones after all.

But still, Galileo was a great thinker, and I am a big fan. I particularly like his way of looking at nature as the work of God, and seeking to understand it better in this context. And the "Galileo Affair" and his work and ideas are important for striving to understand how religious belief and scientific understanding of the natural world relate to each other.

Some key quotes:

Take note, theologians, that in your desire to makes 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)

Philosophy is written in this grand book, the universe, which stands continually open to our gaze. But the book cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and read the letters in which it is composed. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometric figures without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it; without these, one wanders about in a dark labyrinth.
- The Assayer (1623)

But I do not feel obliged to believe that that same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them
- Letter to Madame Christina of Lorraine, Grand Duchess of Tuscany (1615)

That's all for now, folks, but if you should wish to hear more, I will be "Revisiting the Galileo Affair" on Tuesday, April 17, as part of the CASE Christianity and Contemporary Thought lecture series. I hope to see you all there (although those who live in a different hemisphere will, of course, be excused).

Lame Science, Blind Religion

Separate but equal? Faith versus evidence? Not convinced.

Click here.

Does Dawkins exist?

A parable.

If I had a hammer...

My dad just walked through the house holding a hammer and some nails.

Ah, you've got a hammer! Are you going to hammer in the morning?

Well, no, it's the afternoon now.

Are you going to hammer in the evening?

I hope to be finished before then.

Are you going to hammer all over this land?

No, just the back step.

Is it a hammer of justice?

No, it's a claw hammer.

Are you going to hammer out justice?

No.

Are you going to hammer out warning?

No.

Love between your brothers and your sisters all over this land?

Nope, I'm just going to fix the step.

He's now finished hammering...

Wine writers show that facts don't exist

Click here.

Sargeant Pepper

A stylish way to defend oneself from attackers. Too bad it's illegal here!

Loving it

Michael Jensen on blogging

Click here.

Putting 9/11 into perspective

Imagine that on 9/11, six hours after the assault on the twin towers and the Pentagon, terrorists had carried out a second wave of attacks on the United States, taking an additional 3,000 lives. Imagine that six hours after that, there had been yet another wave. Now imagine that the attacks had continued, every six hours, for another four years, until nearly 20 million Americans were dead. This is roughly what the Soviet Union suffered during World War II, and contemplating these numbers may help put in perspective what the United States has so far experienced during the war against terrorism.

Continue reading here.

Education or Indoctrination?

Nick has written a post about a movie called Jesus Camp. I thought my comment was going to get too long, so I'm posting it here instead.

Where do you draw the line between education and indoctrination? Can you give children a choice without educating them about religion anyway? I was a Christian from a young age, but I don't think I was indoctrinated. Do you? I didn't have a full understanding of what it meant to be a Christian. I "asked Jesus into my heart" when I was about 3 or 4 (maybe older, I can't remember), but I didn't really know what it meant. I did it just after my bath - I thought he'd be able to get in more easily if I wasn't wearing any clothes! But just because I only had a child's understanding doesn't mean I was indoctrinated. It wasn't something I was forced to do. I wanted to do it, and my parents weren't even in the room at the time.

My understanding of Christianity grew gradually as I got older. I don't know exactly when I understood different things, but I remember trying to evangelise my friends when I was about 6 or 7 (I was a very cute little girl back then, by the way). I organised a group of my friends at school into a little singing group and we performed some Sunday School songs for the rest of the class (and we were invited next door to sing to the other class as well). I used to invite friends to Sunday School. No one told me to. I just wanted my friends to know what I knew about Jesus. Does this sound like indoctrination?

When I was 12 (only 2 years older than your cut-off of 10), at Easter time, it really hit me just how significant and important it was that Jesus died for me. I count this as the time that I made a real commitment to Christ, and took my parents' faith on for myself. But that doesn't mean that I didn't believe it before, or that I just believed because my parents did. If that was the case, I might not have stayed a Christian. No one would have forced me to. My parents might not have been happy, but I'm sure they would have respected my decision.

Yes, my parents "forced" me to go to Sunday School when I was a kid. Mostly I enjoyed it, but sometimes I wanted to sleep in on Sunday mornings. But they forced me to do a lot of other things too - eat vegetables, go to school, practise piano - I'm grateful for all of it. Except for the brussels sprouts.

I'm a Christian, and I consider that I have been one pretty much my whole life. Although my understanding has changed, there was never a time that I didn't believe in God or what he has done. But I've always had a choice. I've had plenty of chances to change my mind. I've had my faith and beliefs challenged. I haven't shied away from such challenges - I read books by authors such as Dawkins, and I get into debates with people like Peter Slezak. I am not a Christian out of ignorance. The more I read and the more I think about it, the more it makes sense. This, I think, is what Dawkins just doesn't get. He seems to think that the only Christians who aren't ignorant, indoctrinated and blind are the ones whose beliefs hardly resemble Christianity any more. He's wrong.

Art and Science

Title: In Saturn's Shadow
2006, NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute

With giant Saturn hanging in the blackness and sheltering Cassini from the sun's blinding glare, the spacecraft viewed the rings as never before, revealing previously unknown faint rings and even glimpsing its home world.

Read more here.

Hello

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

Dr Zhivago published in Russian by the CIA

Click here.

Fundamentalism

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

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

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

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

Read the whole article here.

Should philosophers be more like scientists?

Is philosophy progressive?

I like butterflies

My favourite colour is blue.

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

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

Angels for Hope

This is a sweet idea.

Hat tip: Daily Candy

Very interesting

Sydney Anglican Heretics.

See also the comments on Craig's post here.

More on religion and politics

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

Read more here.

Do you like butterflies?

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

Antoine de Saint-Exupery, The Little Prince

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

See also Byron's post on Dickens on Butterflies.

FYI

Strike a match.

When is abortion racism?

An intense sermon from John Piper.

Simply Christian

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

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

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

Top 25

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

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

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

Christianity in a Democracy

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

I recommend that you check it out.

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

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

Strange

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

I'm not sure how that works.

It's almost here!

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

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

Singstar

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

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



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

Happy Birthday Pierre Gassendi!

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

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

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

Happy Birthday Sir Francis Bacon!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Reason and Religion

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Deadly Certitude

Steven Weinberg's review of Dawkins.

Le Grand Content

Thanks to Tim.

Am I a heretic?

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

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

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

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

Past the 200 mark...

Very exciting.

Zadie Smith on writing and reading

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

Read the whole article here.

Very scary

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

Click here.

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

Click here.

The Thrill of the Chaste

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

Religion and politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Joyce of Science

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

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

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

A question about Merton drew this response:

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

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

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

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

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

F.A. Muller
Amsterdam

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

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

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

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

No willpower

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

ROMANS!!

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

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

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

I need to vent...

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are deer pants?

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

November and December 2006

Books bought:

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

Books read:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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...