Friday, September 05, 2008

Conversations


I don't know how to say this
I don't know how to stand
I don't know where to put my feet
Or where to put my hands

I've got them in my pockets
My fingers are freezing cold
They're wrapped around a ticket stub
That's four weeks old
And I don't know how to say this

I think we've figured out
This world is bigger than you and I
We've exhausted our wealth of knowledge
And have no more answers for mankind

We've had every conversation in the world
About what is right and what has all gone bad
But have I mentioned to you that this is all I am
This is all that I have

I'm not trying to judge you
That's not my job
I am just a seeker too
In search of God

Somewhere somehow this subject became taboo
I have no other way to communicate to you
This is all that I am
This is all that I have

We've had every conversation in the world
About what is right and what has all gone bad
But have I mentioned to you that this is all I am
This is all that I have

I would like to share with you
What makes me complete.
I don't claim to have found the Truth
But I know it has found me

The only thing that isn't meaningless to me
Is Jesus Christ and and way he set me free
This is all that I have
This is all that I am

- Sara Groves

Tuesday, September 02, 2008

Faraday Institute now on YouTube

Click here.

In other news:

Those in the Birmingham UK area might be interested to know that on Saturday, 27th September, at 4.0 p.m. in the George Hotel, Lichfield, the Institute Director (Professor Denis Alexander) will be in debate with Prof. Steve Fuller (Prof. of Sociology at Warwick University) at the Lichfield Literary Festival on the subject of Intelligent Design. This is a somewhat counterintuitive debate in that Prof. Fuller, an agnostic, is an ID supporter whereas the Director, a theist, is a critic of ID. Hopefully the exchange of views will clarify rather than further obfuscate a topic perennially surrounded by a thick fog of confusion.


I wish I lived in England!

Monday, September 01, 2008

Anastasia Grace

On the weekend, Matt and I finally made it down to Canberra to catch up with Tim and Tegan and to meet our gorgeous new niece, Anastasia. I've only started to become clucky in the last few years, but for now, I'm definitely happy to just be an aunt! I enjoyed cuddling Anastasia and changing her clothes twice (I left the nappies to Tim and Tegan!), but it's good to give her back when she starts screaming! Well, I guess I can't really give her what she wants in that situation anyway...



She's such a sweet little baby - very snuggly. She takes her sleep very seriously, and it can be difficult to wake her up for a feed! Even though she's hungry and makes little sucking motions with her mouth, she just doesn't seem to want to wake up the whole way!






It's lovely to watch my big brother Tim with his little daughter. He and Tegan both seem to be adjusting very well to parenthood! It's amazing how well they're doing on so little sleep.


It was also lovely to see Matt with Anastasia. She's so tiny in comparison to him!




I can't wait to get down to Canberra again! It's such a shame that it's a 3 hour drive and petrol is so expensive. I want to watch my little niece grow!

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

My new niece


Anastasia - 12 hours old
Originally uploaded by Mister Tim
Isn't she beautiful? This is Anastasia Grace, born last night to my brother Tim and my lovely sister-in-law Tegan.

Matt and I are very excited to be an uncle and aunt for the first time, and we can't wait to meet this gorgeous new addition to our family.

Congratulations Tim and Tegan, and welcome to the world Anastasia!

Vital stats:

3.895kg (8.6 pounds), 51cm long, head circumference of 36cm.

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

More JAS Classics

From another meeting with my supervisor:

People are dumb... You're going to meet a lot of people who heave their heads up their bums, pardon the expression, about historiography.


There's more to natural philosophy than meets the actor's eye.


The idea is that it's not just the ideas.


There be Jesuits there! I shouldn't go there if I were you!


It's so "yesterday" to think about mathematical sciences. Like there would have been a modern world if there hadn't been any mathematical sciences and scientific revolution, if it had all been natural history. For Christ's sake. It's just they don't know anything. They don't want to.

Opinions and arguments

Update: My letter was published! Here's what my supervisor had to say about one of the correspondents:

I think that [he] may have been (maybe still is) an ultra green goon who used to be tied up with the STS (Science and Technology Studies) criminals and leftwing ratbags at Wollongong.


Hmm...

---

John Lennox, an Oxford mathematician and philosopher of science, is currently in Sydney making several appearances for the Centre for Public Christianity, EU and National Science Week. I've met him once at a conference, where he was supporting Intelligent Design in the midst of an unfriendly audience (in a fairly theoretical, speculative, "let's just think about this" kind of way), and he seems a nice and very interesting guy. I don't agree with everything he says (I'm not terribly sympathetic to Intelligent Design) but I thought his opinion piece in yesterday's SMH was spot on.

I was not so keen on the responses today from Vic Stenger and Paul Gittings, so I wrote a couple of letters to the editor. They probably won't get published, so I'll post them here instead, in the tradition of Andrew's Daily Vowel Movements.

The first is a response to Vic Stenger's opinion piece, "Science demands that seeing is believing."

Vic Stenger (“Science demands that seeing is believing”, August 19) claims that science can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God doesn’t exist, and yet also states that science cannot be used to answer purely metaphysical questions. He argues that if God exists, evidence of his intervention in creation should be seen in our study of the natural world. However, a scientist and philosopher such as Stenger should be aware of the principle of underdetermination. For any evidence we collect about nature, we can develop multiple theories to explain it. Scientific data cannot necessarily decide between theories – these decisions are based on other criteria, such as simplicity, elegance and coherence. As John Lennox (“Why not every scientist worships at Darwin’s feet”, August 18) pointed out, scientific evidence alone cannot adjudicate between naturalism and theism. For a theist, science involves understanding the world and the processes by which God created. But the belief in God comes from outside science, and so does an assumption that there is no God.

The second is in response to Paul Gitting's letter about John Lennox.

Paul Gittings (Letters, August 19) writes that theism says “I don’t know, I don’t want to understand, I just want to be happy in my irrational beliefs.” Can he really believe this of an Oxford professor of mathematics and philosophy of science?


It really seemed to me that both Stenger and Gittings just weren't getting what Lennox was saying. Nowhere in the opinion piece did Lennox come out in support of Intelligent Design, nor did he promote any kind of "god of the gaps" theory. He wasn't arguing that positing God as creator solves any problems currently unresolved by science. Rather, he pointed out that, as an underlying assumption about the world, theism (assuming an intelligent creator) is no more faith-based than naturalism (assuming that everything in the universe came about by purely natural means).

Update: I received an email to say that my letter had been shortlisted for publication in tomorrow's Herald. Just don't know which one...

The War on Terror

Our lovely sister Lynley bought us the War on Terror board game as an engagement present earlier this year. I'm very happy to say that the last time we played, despite Matt turning terrorist and attempting to wipe out all that was good and democratic in the world, my pink empire prevailed and I won the game. I'm not usually all that competitive, but I'm still really stoked about winning - I'm not usually good at strategy games, and given that this game is like a cross between Risk and Settlers of Catan, I surprised myself!

Anyway, it's quite a fun game but apparently not as innocent as I had thought...

The wonderful boys in blue of the Kent constabulary decided to confiscate three copies of War on Terror from activists at this year's Climate Camp at Kingsnorth Power Station. Apparently the EVIL balaclava could be used to commit criminal acts... It's official, our board game is dangerous. Lots of journalist types decided to write about our game getting confiscated rather than the impending doom that is climate chaos and our government's inability to do shit all about it.

Read more here.



This is a photo of Matt in the "evil balaclava" taken the first time we played the game by my brother Tim, a very talented photographer.

Monday, August 18, 2008

A Mere Christian

I currently attend an Anglican church, but I would not call myself an Anglican. I used to attend a Baptist church, and I was baptised, by full immersion, as a believer, at age 12, but I would not call myself a Baptist.

I am a Christian, a Mere Christian, of no other Religion; and the Church that I am of is the Christian Church… But must you know what Sect or Party I am of? I am against all Sects and dividing Parties…

- Richard Baxter, Church History of the Government of Bishops, 1680

Sunday, August 17, 2008

The Omnivore's Hundred

From Laura's blog.

1) Copy this list into your blog or journal, including these instructions.
2) Bold all the items you’ve eaten.
3) Cross out any items that you would never consider eating (I italicised - couldn't figure out strike-through on blogger!)
4) Optional extra: Post a comment at www.verygoodtaste.co.uk linking to your results.

The VGT Omnivore’s Hundred:

1. Venison
2. Nettle tea
3. Huevos rancheros
4. Steak tartare
5. Crocodile
6. Black pudding
7. Cheese fondue
8. Carp
9. Borscht
10. Baba ghanoush
11. Calamari
12. Pho
13. PB&J sandwich
14. Aloo gobi
15. Hot dog from a street cart
16. Epoisses
17. Black truffle
18. Fruit wine made from something other than grapes
19. Steamed pork buns
20. Pistachio ice cream
21. Heirloom tomatoes
22. Fresh wild berries
23. Foie gras
24. Rice and beans
25. Brawn, or head cheese
26. Raw Scotch Bonnet pepper
27. Dulce de leche
28. Oysters
29. Baklava
30. Bagna cauda
31. Wasabi peas
32. Clam chowder in a sourdough bowl
33. Salted lassi
34. Sauerkraut
35. Root beer float
36. Cognac with a fat cigar
37. Clotted cream tea
38. Vodka jelly
39. Gumbo
40. Oxtail
41. Curried goat
42. Whole insects
43. Phaal
44. Goat’s milk
45. Malt whisky from a bottle worth £60/$120 or more
46. Fugu
47. Chicken tikka masala
48. Eel
49. Krispy Kreme original glazed doughnut
50. Sea urchin
51. Prickly pear
52. Umeboshi
53. Abalone
54. Paneer
55. McDonald’s Big Mac Meal
56. Spaetzle
57. Dirty gin martini
58. Beer above 8% ABV
59. Poutine
60. Carob chips
61. S’mores
62. Sweetbreads
63. Kaolin (Clay?)
64. Currywurst
65. Durian
66. Frogs’ legs
67. Beignets, churros, elephant ears or funnel cake
68. Haggis
69. Fried plantain
70. Chitterlings, or andouillette
71. Gazpacho
72. Caviar and blini
73. Louche absinthe
74. Gjetost, or brunost
75. Roadkill
76. Baijiu
77. Hostess Fruit Pie
78. Snail
79. Lapsang souchong
80. Bellini
81. Tom yum
82. Eggs Benedict
83. Pocky
84. Tasting menu at a three-Michelin-star restaurant (Well, an SMH hatted restaurant.)
85. Kobe beef
86. Hare
87. Goulash
88. Flowers
89. Horse
90. Criollo chocolate
91. Spam
92. Soft shell crab
93. Rose harissa
94. Catfish
95. Mole poblano
96. Bagel and lox
97. Lobster Thermidor
98. Polenta
99. Jamaican Blue Mountain coffee
100. Snake

Friday, August 15, 2008

Aldridge

Continuing on from yesterday's post about changing my name...

My supervisor was also commenting that "Aldridge" sounded very American upper class - "The Aldridges of Boston" or something like that. He thought it might have been a Mayflower name, but after a quick Google search, I can't find any evidence of that.

However, Aldridge is a town in England, which Matt and I visited while we were over there. We were hoping to get a photo of the newest Aldridge in front of a nice "Welcome to Aldridge" sign, but we couldn't find one. We asked at a shop, and apparently touched on a sore point - the shop keeper was just reading over the minutes of a council meeting about trying to get such a sign!



Interestingly, Aldridge is in Walsall, which is where my grandfather was from. So, in becoming an Aldridge by marriage, I've really just returned to my roots!



Update: I think my supervisor was confusing "Aldridge" with "Alden" - John Alden was a character in a poem called The Courtship of Miles Standish. He mentioned this story, and the possibility that there was a John Aldridge involved, but sadly it was John Alden.

Hilarious!

I wonder if I can work an excuse like this into my review next week?

The last time I studied Malebranche’s Reserche de la Verite was back in the mid-sixties. I was mistakenly given credit for French competence as my dissertation topic was Duhem, but I never managed to find the building where the course on non-fiction French was held. The only English translation of Malebranche back then was the seventeenth century one. At UT Austin it was kept in the rare book room at the top (26th) of the library. While dutifully studying it I heard a drum beat and looking out the window I saw a procession far below carrying a coffin. I went down to find out what was going on. It turned out to be an anti-war demonstration, which I joined and never went back. Well, not quite. In August 1966 I planned to return, but a friend (who, being a native Texan, took assassinations and mass murders in stride as an everyday thing in those days) casually told me I probably should delay my visit, as about 50 people had been shot and a score had been killed. This was the famous Texas Tower Sniper, and the library was closed off after he was killed above the 26th floor. That’s my excuse for not grasping Malebranche in graduate school.
as well as I should have.

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Long time, no post

Before I can post a real post, I figure I should at least make a brief comment about the fact that I've been gone so long. Wedding, honeymoon, conferences, settling into married life... It's been an insanely crazy couple of months.

Strangely enough, I post more when I'm working harder on my PhD, so perhaps now that I'm starting to get back into the swing of things, I'll post here more regularly...

Sunday, June 08, 2008

I'm loving Garage Hymnal

In other news, I'm getting married in 6 days!!

Wednesday, June 04, 2008

The Bangles rock!


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

Except...

I'm getting married in 10 days!!!

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

This is an awesome poem!

Why Are Fire Engines Red?

They have four wheels and eight men;
four plus eight is twelve;
twelve inches make a ruler;
a ruler is Queen Elizabeth;
Queen Elizabeth sails the seven seas;
the seven seas have fish;
the fish have fins;
the Finns hate the Russians;
the Russians are red;
fire engines are always rushin';
so they're red.

H/t Robert Velarde at A Reasonable Imagination.

In other news, I'm getting married in 24 days!!

Friday, May 16, 2008

The editors of the NIV are not men!

Want to know what's wrong with America? Check out this video...

Totally random video

Saturday, May 10, 2008

5 weeks to go!

Or 35 days.

Either way, it's getting scary. It's both a very long and a very short period of time!

Friday, May 02, 2008

Evil?

This is the man that I'm going to marry:


The "evil balaclava" is from the hilarious War on Terror board game given to us by my lovely sister-in-law-to-be, Lynley.

Thursday, May 01, 2008

Submission

In preparation for our impending marriage (44 days to go!), Matt and I have talked quite a lot about what we think headship and submission mean in a Christian marriage. Believe it or not, for those who think I'm a raving feminist, we will be having a reading from Ephesians at the wedding, and a sermon that will address this topic.

I'm not going to go into a lot of detail now about what we think about submission and headship - I'll need more time for that than I currently have - but I'd like to share one thought that we received from Tim MacBride (preacher and musician extraordinaire, and associate pastor at my church). He said that if there are gender roles in marriage (he's not entirely convinced of the headship/submission distinction) it's not about who takes leadership or responsibility, or who gets to make the decisions. It's about who gets to be the bigger servant.

I think this is kind of reflected in the most common argument that Matt and I have. We're generally pretty good with arguments - we don't have too many. We've occasionally conflicted over big issues, but have always managed to sort things out. The issues we disagree over most, and generally refuse to compromise, are ones that don't matter at all. But this exchange, in the comments on this post and quoted below, is our most common argument:

chindogu said... My Fiancee is cooler!

lara said... Nuh uh! Mine is so much cooler!

chindogu said... I think not. Yours is cool, but mine is definatly cooler!

lara said... Nuh uh! Mine is definitely the cooler fiance!

chindogu said... I demand that you submit to my headship! My Fiancee is cooler!

lara said... OK!

It's the only time Matt would ever demand that I submit, and the only time that I would submit to such a demand!

And yes, I know, it's sickeningly sweet. We're kind of like that at the moment...

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Don't sneeze on ducks!

I'm preparing for my classes today, doing a reading about flu epidemics. The author is talking about how viruses can mutate and pass between species, and makes this classic comment:

Many scientists now recommend that people not sneeze on ducks unless they are intent on making a new strain of flu.


Achoo!

45 days to go!

Hurrah!

I could write about all the things that we've still got to do, but that would waste the time I should be spending on actually doing the things! So, I'll just say this:

I can't wait to be married to the most wonderful man I've ever known! I love my fiance!!

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Freezing!

When I got to uni this morning I noticed two things:

1. It's quieter than usual in the FASS

2. It's a lot colder than usual in the FASS.

It took me about 5 minutes before I put 1 and 2 together and got 3:

3. The air conditioning is not on.

I'm freezing!

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

On Speed




A recent release from New York University Press. I bought it today for one reason, and one reason alone - I got a mention in the acknowledgments!!

"The research assistance of [Lara] was most helpful in completing the work."


It's not much, but it's still exciting!

And ok, there was another reason I bought the book. The research I did (little though it was) was actually very interesting - looking at studies on the use of amphetamines in the military. And while I was fixing up the references, the bits I got to skim looked interesting too. I'm not sure I'll actually get a chance to read it in the near future, but that's never stopped me buying a book before!

Monday, April 14, 2008

2 months to go!

Very exciting indeed!

Friday, April 11, 2008

I need help!

This is a bizarre website!

Thursday, April 03, 2008

Why???

I tutor an online subject on Science and Religion, and I always seem to get the most hyperactive groups. Compare the number of messages posted in each group so far. Mine are groups 4 and 5, in purple below:

Tute 1 140 Messages

Tute 2 64 Messages

Tute 3 99 Messages

Tute 4 348 Messages

Tute 5 239 Messages

Tute 6 94 Messages

Tute 7 104 Messages

Tute 8 172 Messages


This is just ridiculous! Tutors should get paid by the message instead of a flat rate per week!

Monday, March 31, 2008

Science and religion - friends?

One of the students in my Science and Religion class posted this excerpt from an episode of Friends. It's classic!

PHOEBE: You know, there're a lot of things that I don't believe in, but that doesn't mean they're not true.

JOEY: Such as?

PHOEBE: Like crop circles, or the Bermuda triangle, or evolution?

ROSS: Whoa, whoa, whoa. What, you don't, uh, you don't believe in evolution?

PHOEBE: Nah. Not really.

ROSS: You don't believe in evolution?

PHOEBE: I don't know, it's just, you know...monkeys, Darwin, you know, it's a, it's a nice story, I just think it's a little too easy.

ROSS: Too easy? Too...The process of every living thing on this planet evolving over millions of years from single-celled organisms, too easy?

PHOEBE: Yeah, I just don't buy it.

ROSS: Uh, excuse me. Evolution is not for you to buy, Phoebe. Evolution is scientific fact, like, like, like the air we breathe, like gravity.

PHOEBE: Ok, don't get me started on gravity.

ROSS: You uh, you don't believe in gravity?

PHOEBE: Well, it's not so much that you know, like I don't believe in it, you know, it's just...I don't know, lately I get the feeling that I'm not so much being pulled down as I am being pushed.

ROSS: How can you not believe in evolution?

PHOEBE: Just don't. Look at this funky shirt!

ROSS: Pheebs, I have studied evolution my entire adult life. Ok, I can tell you, we have collected fossils from all over the world that actually show the evolution of different species, ok? You can literally see them evolving through time.

PHOEBE: Really? You can actually see it?

ROSS: You bet. In the U.S., China, Africa, all over.

PHOEBE: See, I didn't know that.

ROSS: Well, there you go.

PHOEBE: Huh. So now, the real question is, who put those fossils there, and why?

ROSS: Ok, Pheebs. See how I'm making these little toys move? Opposable thumbs. Without evolution, how do you explain opposable thumbs?

PHOEBE: Maybe the overlords needed them to steer their spacecrafts.

ROSS: Please tell me you're joking.

PHOEBE: Look, can't we just say that you believe in something, and I don't.

ROSS: No, no, Pheebs, we can't, ok, because--

PHOEBE: What is this obsessive need you have to make everyone agree with you? No, what's that all about? I think, I think maybe it's time you put Ross under the microscope.

ROSS: Ok, Phoebe, this is it. In this briefcase I carry actual scientific facts. A briefcase of facts, if you will. Some of these fossils are over 200 million years old.

PHOEBE: Ok, look, before you even start, I'm not denying evolution, ok, I'm just saying that it's one of the possibilities.

ROSS: It's the only possibility, Phoebe.

PHOEBE: Ok, Ross, could you just open your mind like this much, ok? Wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in the world believed that the world was flat? And, up until like what, 50 years ago, you all thought the atom was the smallest thing, until you split it open, and this like, whole mess of crap came out. Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?

ROSS: There might be, a teeny, tiny, possibility.

PHOEBE: I can't believe you caved.

ROSS: What?

PHOEBE: You just abandoned your whole belief system. I mean, before, I didn't agree with you, but at least I respected you. How, how, how are you going to go into work tomorrow? How, how are you going to face the other science guys? How, how are you going to face yourself? Oh! That was fun. So who's hungry?

75 days to go!

I had a friend tell me I couldn't count down by the day until there were only 30 days to go - she simply wouldn't allow it. Good thing I don't care what does and does not allow!

I think I'll post every five days now. It's getting close, but not close enough! I just can't wait to be married!

Matt and I are going to count down the rest of the days until our wedding by reading through the Psalms, two a day. I'll try to post some thoughts on here, if I get a chance.

Wedding preparations are going quite well (though I can't say the same for my thesis...) The main thing at the moment is finding somewhere to live. We've had two applications to rent units knocked back so far, and we're waiting to hear about another. I'm going to check out a few places in Miranda and Caringbah tomorrow. It's good that I have flexible working hours so I can do these things during the day! It must be so hard for couples who both work 9-5.

Revelation - A Preview

A preview of my church's upcoming series on Revelation.



The main guy speaking is Tim MacBride, our associate pastor. The one who comes in to tell him to clean up the car park is Ange, the senior pastor. Christian, who Tim calls on the phone with a "ministry opportunity" is our (relatively) new student pastor. The girl who comes in at the end is Hayley, who works in the office one day a week.

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

80 days to go!

Very exciting indeed!

Friday, March 21, 2008

CPX

The Centre for Public Christianity website has launched.

Check it out!

Thursday, March 20, 2008

5 songs I'm loving at the moment

1. Sweet About Me, by Gabriella Cilmi
2. Mercy, by Duffy
3. Saving my Face, by KT Tunstall
4. Untouched, by the Veronicas
5. Hot, by Avril Lavigne


Go ahead. Mock my taste!

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Monday, March 17, 2008

The Hermeneutics Quiz

Click here.

I scored 54, which makes me a moderate, albeit on the conservative end of the scale.

Oops

I missed the "90 days to go" milestone. That was yesterday. Now it's only 89 days to go!

I'm in a bad mood today. I got an email from my supervisor yesterday with comments on my draft of chapter 5 and the news that I have to rethink a lot of the way the second half of my thesis is structured and rationalised. Not good. At the moment, I'm feeling completely defeated by my thesis.

Why can't we just elope now and I'll finish the thesis later?!

Friday, March 14, 2008

Three months to go!

OK, now this is just getting scary! I can't wait to get married to my wonderful fiance, but when I think about all the stuff that I have to get done by then, I freak out a little. OK, I freak out a lot. Pulling my hair out and moaning is usually involved. Here's a snapshot of what needs to be done:

  • Finish PhD (by June 1, otherwise Matt says the wedding is off!)
    • It's hard to estimate the percentage completed, but I've got one chapter in nearly final form, two chapters getting close to that, and three chapters that still need a lot of work. Plus the conclusion and introduction. And formatting and referencing.
  • 11 weeks of teaching
    • I'm teaching three subjects this session. I've got three face-to-face hours of teaching per week (two for history of medicine, one for the scientific revolution) and two online groups for science and religion
    • Beyond preparing for and facilitating tutorial discussions, there's all the marking. I get out of the take-home exam for one subject because it's due while I'm on the honeymoon (!), and fortunately I have a whole week to mark all the science and religion journals before the wedding.
  • Wedding planning
    • Wedding cars
    • Hair and make-up (i.e. find someone to do it on the day)
    • Dress fittings for me and the bridesmaids
    • Decide on vows, sermon, readings etc.
    • Finalise music and ask musicians
    • Decide on stuff for the reception - will there be dancing, what kind of music etc.
    • Make and send invitations
    • Order bonbonniere, make place cards
    • Decide on flowers - I went to see the florist on Monday night, but I had a migraine, so it was a bit difficult to make decisions
    • Gift registry
    • Probably other things that I can't think of right now
  • We still need to find somewhere to live.
    • We put in an application yesterday for a unit that would have been perfect, but we missed out. Oh well. That would have been just too easy! Now it's back to the drawing board...
Overall, we're doing quite well with the wedding stuff. We've finished our marriage preparation course with Matt's minister, and that was very interesting and helpful. A lot of things have been done, and I know we'll get there in the end. Actually, it's probably the PhD that's stressing me out the most at the moment.

Still, only three months until I get to marry the most wonderful man in the world! Hurrah!

An interesting discussion thread

Interesting.






What's your theological worldview?
created with QuizFarm.com
You scored as Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan

You are an evangelical in the Wesleyan tradition. You believe that God's grace enables you to choose to believe in him, even though you yourself are totally depraved. The gift of the Holy Spirit gives you assurance of your salvation, and he also enables you to live the life of obedience to which God has called us. You are influenced heavly by John Wesley and the Methodists.


Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan


79%

Neo orthodox


64%

Emergent/Postmodern


61%

Reformed Evangelical


50%

Classical Liberal


25%

Roman Catholic


25%

Fundamentalist


21%

Charismatic/Pentecostal


14%

Modern Liberal


4%


Overloaded

I think I have taken on way too much teaching this session. One of my subjects is an online Science and Religion course. I've tutored it a number of times now, and once again I seem to have been stuck with the hyperactive students who post more than all the other groups put together!

OK, that might be a bit of an exaggeration, but last session both my groups posted twice as many times as the next most prolific group. And they weren't just short, nonsense posts either - they had some really good things to say! So I guess I can't complain too much...

One really amazing thing: for the first time someone has suggested rules/guidelines for making sure the discussion doesn't get out of hand. A brilliant idea - it's a controversial topic, people are passionate about their own views, and being online, people seem to feel that they have more freedom to be rude than they would be in person, and comments are open to much more misinterpretation. I've seen some nasty exchanges in the past - I hope this session is different.

Saturday, March 08, 2008

Friday, March 07, 2008

Getting my hopes up

Received this email this morning:

Dear Amazon.com Customer,

We've noticed that customers who have purchased or rated Cambridge Platonist Spirituality (Classics of Western Spirituality) by Charles Taliaferro have also purchased The Cambridge Platonists in Philosophical Context: Politics, Metaphysics and Religion (International Archives of the History of Ideas / Archives internationales d'histoire des idées) by G.A. Rogers. For this reason, you might like to know that The Cambridge Platonists in Philosophical Context: Politics, Metaphysics and Religion (International Archives of the History of Ideas / Archives internationales d'histoire des idées) is now available. You can order yours for just $230.00 by following the link below.

The Cambridge Platonists in Philosophical Context: Politics, Metaphysics and Religion (International Archives of the History of Ideas / Archives internationales d'histoire des idées)
G.A. Rogers
Price: $230.00


Just $230? And I was getting all excited when I saw "Cambridge Platonists" in the subject line of an email from Amazon...

Thursday, March 06, 2008

100 days to go!

WOOHOO!

You might have noticed the countdown timer to the right - courtesy of my pet nerd!

Thursday, February 28, 2008

A Woman's World

This sounds like a fascinating book.

Perhaps I'll buy a copy when classes start and I'm earning money again!

Darn. I just looked at a blurb for the book on Amazon, and I think it gave away the big twist! Grr.

Monday, February 25, 2008

I'm an oxymoron


Apparently I'm a "Christian" Feminist, and that means I'm an oxymoron. This post is a response to my earlier comments on "gender-specific education."

To be clear this has nothing to do with how smart or capable a woman is and it has everything to do with God’s order for society. Lara, is a PhD student so I’m fairly certain God blessed her with an articulate tongue and a quick wit, as evidenced in her writings. I happen to think my wife is brilliant. God has given her the ability to think and to write and to be a blessing to those around her. These gifting are not lost because she submits to her husband, rather they are enhanced.


I've been doing a lot of reading about submission in marriage because I'm getting married soon, and I want to be clear on what the Bible says about the roles of the husband and wife in a marriage, and how to live that out in my relationship with Matt. I've read a lot of comments along the lines of "submitting doesn't mean a woman is not intelligent." But, a lot of what I've read has suggested that the only place for a woman to exercise these gifts is in the home. One blog I visited seemed to be arguing that the only reason for a woman to get an education is so she'll be better equipped to home-school her children.

I find it hard to get straight answers, though. What exactly does it mean for a woman to submit to her husband? What exactly is the wife's role in marriage? If I want to be a godly wife to Matt, does that mean that all my efforts should be put into our home and to supporting him, or am I allowed to use my intellect to help others as well? Would that be restricted to helping other women, perhaps by blogging or running a women's bible study, or am I allowed to go out into the secular world of the university to teach, encourage students and give public lectures? Am I allowed to write articles and books that will be read by men? I might seem petulant here, but for me these are real questions.

Someone anonymously commented on my post (I'm getting really tired of anonymous comments, and will probably end up not replying to any):

Could you explain more about why her blog makes you angry? I'm confused. She is only stating what she and her husband believe about the world and how they should guide their children. Nowhere did she state in her blog that "Lara in Australia" MUST do as I am teaching my daughters!" If she had done so, of course your anger would be justified, as she has no authority over you and no business guiding your life. But she does hold these positions in relation to her own family. Her blog is not about attacking others, but rather her purpose is to explain how God has led her family and why they do the things they do. Why does this make you angry? I would realy like to understand.

Why am I angry? It's a good question. But I think the blog I linked to gives some of the answer. People like this are not simply describing they way that they live - they are prescribing it as the only correct way for Christians to live.

What is confusing about Lara is she claims to be a Christian and says the Bible is her favorite book, “above all else“. The confusing part is how someone who reads the Bible can claim that feminism is a good thing and even countenance it as a philosophy.


Firstly, I don't know where he got the idea that I'm a "self-proclaimed reluctant feminist," or that I claim feminism as a good thing, and countenance it as a philosophy. Most of the posts I've put on my blog about feminism have been attempts to work through the issues, and I've explicitly said that I don't call myself a feminism. I'm a Christian - that's why my favourite book is the Bible, and not Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique. I don't derive my guidance on how to live from feminist texts - in fact, I can only really claim to have read one (Naomi Wolf's The Beauty Myth) - I derive it from Scripture. The thing is, people's interpretations of Scripture differ. I'm not talking about ultra-liberal, everything in the Bible is just a fable-type people. I'm talking about honest, God-following, truth-seeking Christians. The Bible, while being God's word, is still a text written in human language, and we're still fallible and sinful humans. We can never hope to agree on absolutely everything. So, we shouldn't be arrogant about our own interpretations. And that leads me to my second point.

Anonymous wrote, "Nowhere did she state in her blog that "Lara in Australia" MUST do as I am teaching my daughters!" If she had done so, of course your anger would be justified, as she has no authority over you and no business guiding your life."

Well, in a sense, she was. If someone writes that universities are places of pagan indoctrination and that a degree is just a piece of paper certifying that you've been "fully indoctrinated with statist, marxist-freudian ideologies," what is this saying about Christians who not only choose to receive a university education, but actually pursue several degrees and enjoy the process? And even the Vaughnshire Farm blogger is claiming that Christians shouldn't be educated in secular universities: "As to the socialist humanistic education system, I don’t think it is helpful for men or women. Why would we go to the God hating Darwinist to ask them to teach us about God’s world?"

Another question. What if my husband tells me to go out and work in a secular job rather than be a full-time stay-at-home wife? Should I submit?! The Vaughnshire Farm blogger wrote that his wife's giftings were enhanced because she submits. I believe that this would also happen in my marriage to Matt, because he encourages me to use the gifts that God has given me - not just in the home, but also in the wider world.

I should point out again that I've got nothing at all against women who choose to be stay-at-home wifes and mothers. That doesn't make me angry at all. Why should it? Such women are trying to live out what they see as the biblical model for marriage and family. What does make me angry is any kind of assumption that women who don't follow this exact model are sinning or disobeying God. I think it's arrogance to presume that one's own interpretation of the Bible (and especially the technicalities of how that interpretation is lived out) is the only correct one. I get angry when someone implies that going to uni is only about pagan indoctrination when I've spent the last 9 years seeking to honour God through my studies. I get upset when someone implies that I should be staying at home to serve my husband full-time once I get married instead of seeking to use the gifts and opportunities God has given me to encourage other Christians and to reach the lost. I get incensed when people seem to presume that a woman who wants to work outside the home is seeking worldly glory instead of seeking to honour God. I get frustrated by seeming inconsistency - "I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God" (1 Timothy 2:9-10) but yet wives should make sure they're all dolled up before their husband leaves for work and again when he gets home, to make sure he doesn't stray.

That's probably enough ranting for now. I should be working on my PhD - after all, the sooner I finish it, the sooner I can escape the pagan environment of the university. But to conclude, I'll just add that I'm quite ready to admit that I've misunderstood or misinterpreted what I've read about the points above. Maybe I've got no reason to be angry - maybe these people are not trying to impose their view of God's order on everyone. Or maybe they are right, and I'm just stuck in my worldly indoctrination. I'm still trying to figure these things out. This blog does not contain the final word on anything. It's a work in progress, just like me.

110 days to go!

I've mentioned before that the time is going slowly in some ways, and speeding by in other ways. There's still so much to be done before the wedding - finish organising it, finish the PhD, teach two classes this semester, write two conference papers - but I just can't wait for it all to be done so I can marry the love of my life!

Sunday, February 24, 2008

The Kissing Part

Kid – “The kissing again. Do we have to hear the kissing part?”

Grandfather – “Some day you might not mind so much.”


I promised that I would explain why it is that Matt and I are waiting until our wedding day to kiss. It’s not because we think it’s wrong to for Christians to kiss each other before getting married – we’re not simply taking the “chastity before marriage” thing to the extreme. For us, it’s a matter of prudence. Basically, there’s a line we absolutely don’t want to cross, so instead of getting as close as we can to that line without technically crossing it, we’re drawing an artificial boundary a significant distance away from the absolute boundary (see also Matt’s post on Flight).

It’s not that we don’t want to kiss each other – oh no, we definitely want that! And it’s certainly not easy, but I think in the end, we’ll be glad that we waited.

When I was in high school, I had a scripture teacher who was telling us about a wedding she’d been to where the couple hadn’t kissed before their wedding day. I thought that was crazy. I was rather boy-mad in those days. My first kiss was when I was 15 – at a youth group sleepover at church, actually. It was a week into the relationship – we broke up a week later. My second kiss was when I was 16. It was about two months into the relationship – we broke up less than two months later, and it was the only kiss we shared in that whole time. My third, fourth, and countless other kisses were when I was 22. I started going out with a guy I’d been friends with for a couple of years. He was going overseas for two months only a few weeks after we got together, so things went pretty quickly in that time. There was quite a lot of making out. I enjoyed it, at the time, but afterwards I felt almost guilty. I felt that he was always pushing me to go further than I was comfortable with, and I wasn’t strong enough to resist. In the end, he broke up with me because I wasn’t “fiery and passionate enough.” I thought that this really just showed how little he knew me. I felt that all he cared about was physical affection – he liked my body, but didn’t care so much about my mind. It took me quite awhile to get over that relationship, which really sucks, because he wasn’t worth it!

When I started going out with Matt, I was so grateful to have found someone who not only respected my boundaries, but who took initiative in setting up boundaries that would keep us pure in thought as well as in action. I feel so secure knowing that our relationship is based on so much more than physical affection. With my last boyfriend, physical affection tended to replace conversation whereas with Matt, conversation and getting to know one another has been the foundation of our relationship. I know that he finds me attractive, but for so much more than just my body. I know that he loves my mind as well, and that means so much to me.

I should point out that the “no kissing” rule only actually applies to kissing on the lips – we’re quite happy to give each other a kiss on the cheek, or the forehead, or the hand. We’re still able to show our affection for each other, but we’re in less danger of crossing the boundary we really don’t want to cross, because we’re not getting anywhere near it.

In some ways it’s getting harder. We’re engaged, so it will be very unlikely now that we don’t get married, so it would be easy to say that now it’s ok. But in some ways it’s getting easier. There’s a definite date now – we know when we’re getting married, and so we know when we’ll get to share that first kiss, and so we can count down the days.

111 days to go!

Richard Dawkins' job is up for grabs

Click here.

Saturday, February 23, 2008

How do I know?


As an undergraduate, I studied some philosophy, including epistemology, which I thought was the most useless subject ever. The whole subject revolved around the question “What is Knowledge?” It seems that for a long time, philosophers thought they had it figured out. Knowledge was a justified, true belief. Then, in the 1960s, along comes a guy called Gettier who wrote a 3-page paper blowing this all out of the water by showing that there are examples of justified, true beliefs that are not considered knowledge.

A Gettier problem goes something like this.

Imagine you’re walking down a country road, alongside a field. You see something that looks like a sheep. It’s kind of white and fluffy, it has four legs, and you hear it go “bleat.” You say to yourself, “there is a sheep in that field.” It’s a belief. It’s justified – you’ve got good reasons to believe that what you see is a sheep. It’s true – there is a sheep in that field. The problem is, what you think is a sheep is actually a dog dressed up as a sheep, with a hidden tape recorder (although maybe today it would be an MP3 player – it’s been a number of years since I took this class!) The real sheep is hidden from view, just over a bit of a rise in the field. So, did you really know that there was a sheep in the field? You had a justified, true belief, but since your belief and evidence didn’t refer to the actual object, it’s not knowledge. So what is knowledge? My answer – WHO CARES?! Complete waste of time. Who goes around dressing dogs up as sheep anyway?!

I know that I want to marry Matthew, my lovely fiancé. What does this mean, that I know? It’s probably a bit hard to analyse even in terms of being a justified, true belief. Who can really verify that it’s true except me, and I could be deceiving myself? Anyway, I don’t think it really matters. What might matter a little bit more is how I know that I want to marry Matt.

On Sunday, I received a phone call from a friend who was overseas when Matt and I got engaged. I had emailed her to let her know to happy news, but Sunday was the first time we’d talked about it – she only arrived back in the country last Thursday. She said to me, “I can’t believe you’re engaged! How do you know?!”

It’s a little surprising – she’s actually the first person to have asked that!

When I was young, my mother always told my brother and I that when you meet the right person, you just know. When he got married, my brother said that he’d never believed our mother until he met his wife. When I met Matt… well, I didn’t “just know.”

This worried me for quite awhile. In fact, only three weeks after our first date, I actually broke up with him, because I was convinced it wasn’t going to work out, and I didn’t want to drag things on for too long, because I thought that would only hurt him more. Fortunately, I realised the error of my ways (in part because of the incredibly gracious and caring way he responded to my ending things), and fortunately he gave me a second chance. Of course, now that we’re engaged, I’m fully aware of how much I would have missed out on! But even after this, I still didn’t know.

Less than three months into our relationship, I was feeling completely confused about things. I wasn’t sure I wanted to get married at all, let alone married to Matt. I was concerned about how to balance my career/ministry goals and aspirations with marriage and family. I was wondering if I would be better off remaining single for the sake of the gospel. But it was difficult to think clearly about things. I was about to head off overseas for my third annual European conference adventure. I was trying to write three conference papers, while teaching, marking, working on my PhD and just keeping up with everything else in life. My head was a mess. I was hoping that the time away would give me some space to think, but that was wishful thinking. I was just as busy overseas – conferences, research, sight-seeing… It was exhausting!

While overseas, I spent some time staying with family friends in Walsall. I remember talking to Sheila (a lovely woman a few years older than my mum) about my concerns surrounding career and family. She said that I probably wouldn’t feel that way if I’d met the right person. Strangely enough, her daughter said exactly the same thing as well. Sheila knew I had a boyfriend, but her daughter didn’t. Understandably, this made me even more stressed. Did these conflicted feelings I was having mean that Matt was just not the right one?

When I got back, I still wasn’t sure about things. Seeing Matt again didn’t help either. It was wonderful to see him, and I enjoyed being with him, but I still had doubts. I was actually convinced that I was going to have to break up with him. The complicating factor was that we were going to Melbourne at the end of September (this was mid-August) and I thought that breaking up would make things awkward. Good thing I had a reason to wait – I could have made another terrible mistake!

A couple of weeks after I returned from overseas, I had hot chocolate with a couple of friends, Nicki and Liz. I shared with them about my doubts concerning my relationship with Matt. I can’t remember exactly what they said, but I remember Nicki telling me that she had doubts about marrying her husband almost right up to the wedding day (I hope I’m remembering this right!) It gave me such comfort to know that it was ok to have doubts – that all these feelings I was having were just part of working things out. As I thought about things more, I realised how wrong some of the advice I’d been given was. If I was seriously having concerns about how to combine career and family – because I was passionate about both – of course they weren’t going to disappear just because I met someone and fell in love, particularly as that person was always encouraging me in my academic and intellectual pursuits. In fact, I felt so much reassured by this conversation that I stopped in at Tiffany’s on my way home, just to have a quick peek at engagement rings!

It was at this time that Matt and I had our first fight. Matt had been told by one of his friends that it was important to have at least one fight before getting engaged, so it was good we got it out of the way! It was over something pretty small, but I was a bit upset, and I was concerned about possibly unhelpful relationship precedents. As it turned out, however, we set quite a good relationship precedent – conflict resolution. We managed to sit down and talk things through, sharing how we felt, and what we each had meant by what we’d said, and we both made an effort to understand what the other person was thinking. It’s kind of strange that our first fight was what made me so much more sure of my relationship with Matt, but I guess communication and conflict resolution are important in any relationship.

So that was around mid-August. Since then, I’ve only been becoming more and more sure of my love for Matt and my desire to commit myself fully and eternally to him. I’ve realised that what people really mean (or should really mean) when they say “When you meet the right person, you just know) is “When you realise that you have met the right person, you just know.” I didn’t know as soon as I met Matt – it wasn’t love at first sight – but I do know that he’s the right person. How do I know? Well, to a large extent, I just know. There are innumerable little things that reassure me that we’re doing the right thing, but I’m not sure it’s something that can really be described in words. Just for the record, here are a few key things:

  • I love Matt. I want to serve him, and to serve God and others with him.
  • Being around Matt makes me happy, and being apart from him makes me sad. It’s like I’m addicted and I can’t go for more than a few days without a fix!
  • We really understand each other and appreciate each other’s quirks, like quoting the Princess Bride and other cult classics incessantly. “Turn here!” “Where?” “HERE!”
  • Matt can make me feel so special just by holding my hand.
  • Matt loves me for who I am, and just as I am.
  • I love Matt for who he is, and just as he is.

112 days to go! I can hardly wait!

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Spam

Larissa Johnson,

It is my pleasure to inform you that you are being considered for inclusion into the 2008-2009 Princeton Premier Business Leaders and Professionals "Honors Edition" section of the Registry.

The 2008-2009 edition of the Registry will include biographies of the world's most accomplished individuals. Recognition of this kind is an honor shared by thousands of executives and professionals throughout the world each year. Inclusion is considered by many as the single highest mark of achievement.

Upon final confirmation, you will be listed among other accomplished individuals in the Princeton Premier Registry.

For accuracy and publication deadlines, please complete your application form and return it to us within five business days.

You may access the application form using the following link:



http://app.formassembly.com/forms/view/5882


On behalf of the Managing Director, we wish you continued success.


Sincerely,


Jason Harris

Managing Director
Princeton Premier

Can a Christian couple choose to remain childless?


In a discussion over on Craig's blog, One Salient Oversight wrote:

One important thing to note is that there is sometimes a logical fallacy to this truth. I.e.:

1) Babies are a blessing from God.
2) If you refuse to have children you are refusing God's blessing.
3) To refuse God's blessing is sin.

Points 1 & 2 are correct, but point 3 is not. Alcohol and sex and meat offered to idols come to mind.


This is an issue I've been pondering quite a lot lately. There seem to be a lot of Christians who think that it is not a legitimate choice for a Christian couple to choose not to have children.

From another post on Craig's blog:

A friend made a comment tonight that I thought was pretty good. He said, "If you are not ready for children, you are not ready for marriage. And if you are not ready for marriage, you are not a man. You are just a boy with a drivers license and the right to vote."


Matt and I are getting married in June, but we're not sure yet if we want to have children. We do acknowledge that no contraception is fail proof, and that if God wants us to have children, it will happen. And of course, if I did get pregnant when we weren't planning it, there would be no question of not seeing it through, and I'm sure we'd be grateful for God's blessing. But it is necessary for all married Christian couples to want to have children, and to pursue that goal from the very beginning of marriage?

Monday, February 18, 2008

What would Jesus deconstruct?

This sounds like a very interesting book.

Sunday, February 17, 2008

Grr.

I shouldn't read blogs like this. They only make me angry.

Apparently by going to university, I have taken part in "pagan indoctrination" and I've been "fully indoctrinated with statist, marxist-freudian ideologies." I should have stayed at home, learning to quilt and bake bread.

Interestingly, though, it doesn't say anything about men attending university. Perhaps they're stronger, and not so meek and mild as to blindly accept everything they are taught? Who knows.

Against anthropocentrism

For my part, I cannot believe that all the things in the world were so made for Man, that they have no other use. For it is highly absurd and unreasonable, to think that Bodies of such vast magnitude as the fixt stars, were only made to twinkle to us...

But though in this sence it be not true, that all things were made for Man; yet thus far it is, that all the Creatures in the world may be some way or other useful to us, at least to exercise our Wits and Understandings, in considering and contemplating of them, and so afford us Subject of Admiring and Glorifying their and our Maker.

- John Ray, Wisdom of God, pp. 128-9.

Doing science in eternity

Life after life after death - see also Byron's excellent series - but what will we be doing on the new earth? Perhaps some of the same things we've been doing on this earth, including, for John Ray, science!

It may be (for ought I know, and as some Divines have thought) part of our business and employment in Eternity to contemplate the Works of God, and give him the Glory of his Wisdom, Power and Goodness manifested in the Creation of them. I am sure it is part of the business of a Sabbath-day, and the Sabbath is a Type of that eternal Rest; for the Sabbath seems to have been first instituted for a commemoration of the Works of the Creation, from which God is said to have rested upon the Seventh Day.

- John Ray, The Wisdom of God Manifested in the Works of the Creation, London, 1691, p. 124


I hope that means it's ok that I'm working on my PhD on a Sunday...

Take that, you atomical and Epicurean atheists!

Whosoever thinketh that the admirable Order and incredible Constancy of the Heavenly Bodies and their Motions, whereupon the Preservation and Welfare of all things doth depend, is not governed by Mind and Understanding, he himself is to be accounted void thereof.

- John Ray, The Wisdom of God Manifested in the Works of the Creation, London, 1691, p. 50.

Friday, February 15, 2008

120 days to go!

I'm counting down in days as well as months...

Thursday, February 14, 2008

The most important post of the day...

I'm getting married in four months!

Four months seems both a scarily short and a frustratingly long period of time. We're one third of the way through our engagement (two months on Saturday since Matt asked me to marry him!), and the time has gone quite quickly, but still it seems like we've got a long time to wait. It's strange: time until the PhD thesis must be done goes quickly but time until the wedding goes slowly, yet it's the same time. Weird.

Anyway, I am eagerly and not entirely patiently anticipating June 14. Here are some specific things (in no particular order) that I'm looking forward to.

  • Wearing the most gorgeous (and most expensive!) dress I've ever owned
  • Seeing the look on Matt's face when I walk down the aisle (the best part of any wedding)
  • Celebrating with family and friends
  • Making a lifetime commitment, before God, to the man I love
  • Our first kiss...

Yes, that's right folks. I'm not just looking forward to our first kiss as a married couple - it'll be our first kiss, full stop. Long story. Remind me to blog more about that another time.

Stupid Matter

One might think that with all these blog posts, I'm getting no work done. On the contrary, I'm actually achieving quite a bit. It's strange. When I'm working hard, I post on my blog. When I'm procrastinating, I comment on Craig's blog!

Anyway, I'm reading through John Ray's The Wisdom of God Manifested in the Works of the Creation (London, 1691) at the moment, so I can finish writing chapter 5 (which deals with natural theology among early members of the Royal Society of London, including John Ray). It's fascinating reading. I love these 17th-century books - the writers sometimes come out with the most amazing statements. I found this cracker from John Ray in a section where he's arguing against the great Robert Boyle. Boyle's mechanical philosophy involves the idea that the universe was formed by matter in motion governed by laws instituted by God, and the continuing preservation of the universe (i.e. God's general Providence) also taking place by these laws.

Ray disagrees that matter and motion are sufficient to do this on their own without some kind of external input. On the idea of the laws, he wrote:

And as for any external Laws or established Rules of Motion, the stupid Matter is not capable of observing or taking notice of them; neither can those Laws execute themselves.


I love it! Can't you just imagine all those particles of matter bumping around in the void, blissfully ignorant of the laws yelling at them to get into line?

Absolutely nothing new!

Reading a little further along in Ray's Wisdom of God, I found this classic:

If the Works of Nature are better, more exact and perfect than the Works of Art, and Art effects nothing without Reason; neither can the Works of Nature be thought to be effected without Reason... A wonder then it must needs be, that there should be any man found so stupid and forsaken of reason as to persuade himself, that this most beautiful and adorned World was or could be produced by the fortuitous concourse of Atomes. He that can prevail with himself to believe this, I do not see why he may not as well admit, that if there were made innumerable Figures of the 21 Letters in Gold, suppose, or any other Metal, and these well shaken and mixt together, and thrown down from some high place to the ground, they when they lighted upon the Earth would be so disposed and ranked, that a man might see and read in them Ennius's Annals; whereas it were a great chance if he should find one Verse thereof among them all.


Sound familiar to anyone? Of course, today the illustration is told in terms of monkeys with typewriters producing the complete works of Shakespeare...

There is nothing new under the sun


Intelligent Design is nothing new, and not because it is merely a tricksy rewording of Creationism (I would dispute that). Here's a quote from John Ray, one of the foremost natural historians (today he would be a biologist/zoologist/botanist) of the seventeenth century:

There is no greater, at least no more palatable and convincing Argument of the Existence of a Deity than the admirable Art and Wisdom that discovers itself in the make and constitution, the order and disposition, the ends and uses of all the parts and members of this stately fabrick of Heaven and Earth. For if in the works of Art, as for example; a curious Edifice or Machine, counsel, design, and direction to an end appearing in the whole frame and in all the several pieces of it, do necessarily infer the being and operation of some intelligent Architect or Engineer, why shall not also in the Works of Nature, that Grandeur and Magnificence, that excellent contrivance for Beauty, Order, Use, &c. which is observable in them, wherein they do as much transcend the Effect of human Art as infinite Power and Wisdom exceeds finite, infer the existence and efficiency of an Omnipotent and All-wise Creator?
- The Wisdom of God Manifested in the Works of the Creation, 1691.


Darwin's ideas about evolution were nothing new either. The idea that apparent design could come about by chance had been around since the ancient Greek philosophers (seventeenth-century natural philosophers such as Ray were particularly concerned with Epicureanism). And even closer to Darwin's own lifetime (overlapping with it, no less) were ideas about evolution such as Lamarck's. The difference was that Darwin proposed a mechanism (borrowed from social science and economics) - natural selection. This, combined with Mendel's genetics, gave us modern Darwinian evolution - a powerful way of explaining how complexity and the appearance of design could arise "naturally."

The "problem" between science and religion, between evolution and creationism, between Intelligent Design and theistic evolution, comes in the interpretation of the word "naturally." I'm not going to go into a lot of detail right now (I've got a thesis to write!), but if we understand that God is sovereign over all, but chooses to act through certain laws that he created and upholds, then "natural" does not exclude God at all, and the fact that evolutionary theory can explain the development of species through so-called "natural" means does not mean that God was not involved.

Pleasantville



This morning my chosen method of procrastination has been browsing some articles on Boundless.org. In an article on how cheaply our culture views sex, I found the following description of the movie Pleasantville:

The plot revolves around a teenage brother and sister whose TV remote control magically transports them into the peaceful, black-and-white world of a Fifties TV sitcom. The sister promptly seduces the captain of the high school basketball team, and before long, the once-innocent teenagers of Pleasantville are all engaging in sex. Soon, their dull, black-and-white world turns to glorious color. The director's message is obvious: Sexual promiscuity will lead to freedom and happiness.


I should say from the outset that I love the movie Pleasantville - it's one of my favourites. I know that a lot of Christians complained about it, but I'd never actually read any articles or reviews about it. Here's some more from another Boundless article:

While some film critics, notably USA Today’s Mike Clark, found [director Gary] Ross’ style preachy and his attacks on the 1950s “specious” and “simplistic,” even they bought into the notion that sex was a metaphor for something else: creativity, freedom or nonconformity what have you.


Perhaps these critics bought into the notion that sex was a metaphor for something else because sex WAS a metaphor for something else. But even if it was a metaphor, this reviewer still doesn't like it:

They fail, however, to understand why directors like Ross rely almost exclusively on this metaphor. For them, sexual freedom is synonymous with personal freedom. You see, at the heart of the 1960s, when many of these directors grew up, was a rebellion against traditional sources of authority: government, moral standards and the church.


True, in our society, sexual freedom is viewed in this way, and that's exactly why it works as a metaphor. But it was just a metaphor. To me, it seems crazy to think that the director was advocating sexual promiscuity in this movie. And to focus solely on the teenagers' sexual exploits leading to the colouring of their world ignores most of the movie and, to be honest, makes me wonder about the preoccupations of such reviewers. To be sure, Jennifer (the sister in the film) seduces the captain of the basketball team, and he starts to see the world turning coloured after this experience, but she herself doesn't change into colour until she ignores the basketball team captain in favour of reading. And her brother David, the geeky one, doesn't change into colour until he stands up to a bunch of nasty guys to defend his mother (well, his mother in Pleasantville).

Other changes that take place in the movie:
  • The books are initially all blank, but the pages gradually fill with text, and going to the library becomes a popular pastime for the kids.
  • The town is completely closed off from the outside world - the people can't even understand the question "what's outside of Pleasantville?" At the end of the movie, there are mountains and trees to be seen outside of the town.
  • Things are not perfect anymore - people don't always get strikes in bowling; the basketball team loses a game; the firemen need to do more than just rescue cats stuck up trees; and it actually rains from time to time.
  • People show emotions - good emotions, such as love, and bad, such as anger.
  • Jennifer decides not to even go back home. She's done with being a "slut" as she puts it, and decides to go to college instead.
There's so much in this movie, and I find it very narrow-minded for people to look at it and condemn it as a bad movie because it "clearly" promotes sexual promiscuity.

To be fair, this article did have some good things to say about the way Hollywood views romance as identical with sex. For example, in Shakespeare in Love, the only reason we know that the two main characters are in love is that they can't keep their hands off each other. I felt the same way about Moulin Rouge. It was supposed to be some great love story, but there was nothing between them except lust.

It is good, and right, to challenge the world views that we are bombarded with by Hollywood. We should understand love as being much more than just lust - it involves sacrifice and commitment as well as fun and pleasure. But I think sometimes Christians can go too far in the movies they condemn. I'm not saying that Pleasantville is some incredibly deep, philosophical movie with an ultimately redeeming message, but it's fun and does make some interesting points about challenging the status quo (whatever that might be - not just the conservative status quo). And I just don't see that it's out to promote the destruction of all morality.

Tuesday, February 12, 2008