Communicating science in the early 20th century

From the library of the Royal Society of London.

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

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

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

Apples and oranges

From the Briefing.

Bending the gender roles

23 October 2006 AD

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

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

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

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

Noticed by Briefing reader at 09:00 AM

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

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

Any thoughts?

Black & White

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

An interesting opinion piece on the challenges of motherhood here.

Thanks to Craig for the link.

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

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

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

Faith and Reason

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

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

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

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

1 Corinthians 1:17-25 - For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. 18For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart."
20Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

I'm interested in people's thoughts. I'd also be interested to know whether or not Nick thinks I'm irrational! (You can tell the truth, Nick - I won't be offended!!)

Coffee is good

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

The Rules

Christine has some very interesting thoughts on dating here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dawkins on Religion

See the full article here.

Some choice quotes picked out by Nick:

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

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

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

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

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

Pragmatism

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

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

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

Australian Music Compilations

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

Classic Aussie Anthems

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

Selections from the last decade:

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

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

Incarnation

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

Augustine

Book I read in September 2006

Only one book this month. :-(

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grr.

Baptists vs Calvinists

All these labels and disputes are driving me crazy!

Baptist Battles Against Calvinism

Happy Birthday Dr Clarke!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and that:

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

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

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

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

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

Note two key phrases here:

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

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

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

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

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

Classic Aussie Music

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

"Classic Aussie Anthems"

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

"Modern Aussie Classics"

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

Other possibilities:

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

Any thoughts?!?!

Psalm 121

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

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

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

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

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

Coming up tulips

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

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

Great Are the LORD's Works!

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

Just in case...

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

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

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

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