In the beginning, God created Australia...

...And surf lifesavers. This video is rather amusing!

Piled High and Deeper

I haven't been keeping up with the PhD comics lately, but I'm reminded of them from time to time when Meredith posts them on her blog. Ah, it's always been so good to know that I'm not the only one who feels this way!

A woman's worth

You don't need a man by your side to validate you as a woman. You already are loved and valued. You're good enough exactly as you are. Do you believe this? Because it's true. You have limitless worth and value. If you embrace this truth, it will affect every area of life, especially your relationship with men.

You are worth dying for.

Your worth does not come from your body, your mind, your work, what you produce, what you put out, how much money you make. Your worth does not come from whether or not you have a man. Your worth does not come from whether or not men notice you. You have inestimable worth that comes from your creator.

You will continue to be tempted in a thousand different ways not to believe this. The temptation will be to go searching for your worth and validity from places other than your creator.

Especially from men.

But you don't have to give yourself away to earn a man's love. You're better than that. You're already loved.

I also like what this article has to say about submission (for a change!) Read the whole article here.

Who wears a kilt?!

An amusing article from Vanity Fair about British expats in New York.

Who moves to America and brings a kilt? Did his mother say, "Farewell, son. Make something of yourself in the New World. Have you packed your native costume, just in case?" Just in case of what? Just in case we decide to re-invade Canada? Just in case he finds a girl with a thing for men in frocks with no knickers? Just in case there's an England-versus-Scotland match on the satellite television in some fake pub?

Entering Jane Austen's World

A review of The Annotated Pride and Prejudice - an edition of Austen's great novel, being published this month, which contains more than 2,300 explanatory notes on every possible aspect of Jane Austen's world. Sounds fantastic to me!

But is it necessary? William Grimes writes:

The reader who does not know a farthing from a guinea, it’s safe to say, will nonetheless grasp the great drama of attraction and repulsion that plays out between Darcy and Elizabeth. The cut and thrust of their conversation is timeless. Generations of young women who do not know the first thing about an entailed estate or a quadrille will recognize in Austen’s heroine a kindred spirit, a contemporary, a valued ally in the eternal war between the sexes.

Grimes also writes:

Certain writers create worlds that readers do not want to leave, ever. Extreme devotees of Austen do not simply enjoy the novels, they want to sit in the living room at Longbourn with the Bennet sisters, drinking tea and analyzing Darcy’s behavior.

For me, I think I'd prefer to hang out with Lizzie and Jane, walking the grounds or cutting and drying flowers. After all, Lydia, Kitty, Mary and Mrs Bennet would all be in the living room...

Evaluating Socrates

Hemlock Available in the Faculty Lounge - what Socrates' students might have said about him in teaching evaluation surveys.

That reminds me... I haven't yet received my teaching evaluations from last session. I wonder if I'll get anyone commenting on my "wondrous eyes" this time?

Faithful & True, but what's the theology?

I've been confused lately about all the different labels being tossed around for "types" of Christian theology; e.g. Reformed, dispensationalist, covenant theology... And then there's a lot of terms that are more familiar, but the definitions are always changing, e.g. evangelical and fundamentalist.

This is one of the more recent songs by Tim MacBride (associate pastor of Narwee Baptist Church, musician extraordinaire and all-round genius). I'm trying to remember the jargon for what kind of theology it's meant to be...

The king has come: the blind can see,
The strong man is bound and the captives go free!
Tell all who have ears that the kingdom is here
And nothing will stand in its way!

To him is given all authority
For he has risen! And the stone rolled away
Became a great mountain, now it fills the earth,
And nothing can stand in its way!

Now Satan is bound from deceiving the nations,
The gospel resounds and the earth hears its song.
And the kingdom rule of the Faithful and True
Has come in each one
Who will bow before the King of Kings.

And when there are people from every nation
And every tongue who join in the song,
Then the kingdom rule of the Faithful and True
Will come and each one
Wll bow before the King of Kings.

You reign over all through the people you've called
You reign over all through the people you've called.

I get the "now, but not yet" idea about the kingom, but that's about it. Is it covenant theology? Amillenial eschatology? I think I need to do more study at Moore College. Much more.

Click here to sample more music from the inimitable Tim Mac.

Third Annual European Adventure

About a month ago I posted about the frustration of waiting to hear whether my conference abstract had been accepted. I probably should have posted earlier about the outcome, but I'm reluctant to blow my own trumpet. Ah, what the heck. Toot, toot!

I'll be heading over to the UK at the end of June for 6 weeks - the third year in a row that I have migrated north for the winter. The main reason for the trip is that I'll be presenting papers at three conferences:

1. The Annual Conference of the British Society for the History of Science, University of Manchester (program available here).
2. Science and Religion: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives, Lancaster University, a conference in honour of John Hedley Brooke (program available here).
3. New Frontiers in Science and Faith, joint meeting of Christians in Science and the American Scientific Affiliation, University of Edinburgh.

It's all very exciting. Of course, I still have to write the three papers...

Falling off the wagon...

Two weeks ago I decided to give up alcohol and chocolate for a month.

With the alcohol, I lasted nine days until my dad convinced me that a glass of red wine was medicinal (although I was recovering from a migraine and actually didn't feel well enough to drink more than a few sips). The following day, a glass of red just seemed so appealing after dealing with the idiot in my tutorial.

With the chocolate I lasted about 12 days, with the small exception of a mini Mars Bar after donating blood (as Donna said, who can fault me for taking sustenance from chocolate after saving someone's life??)

Today I am going to climb back on the wagon. I wonder how long I'll manage to stay on this time...

AARRGGHHH!!!

It's only 10am, and I'm already exhausted. It's only week 4, and I'm already sick of my science and religion tutorials.

I had aimed to do all my tutoring work from home, so that while I'm at uni I can concentrate on PhD work. This weekend, however, I didn't manage to get any work done - recovering from a migraine on Saturday and various social engagements (including Church) on Sunday. The last week has been quite hectic as well, so I've been a bit behind in my tutoring.

I logged on this morning to read about 200 new posts. In the thread for last week's discussion on the historical relations between science and religion I found an argument about testimony as evidence in court, tattoos on bottoms and third nipples, accusations of offending God by mentioning said tattoos and third nipples, tirades back and forth about attacking people, being stubborn and Jesus being a nut-case. Hmm. I think I should keep a closer eye on this group.

I have written several posts exhorting the students to be mindful of other people's opinions, to avoid being dogmatic in simply asserting an existing belief and to make an effort to understand the opposing point of view. I wonder if it has all been in vain...

Perhaps I don't want to move to England after all...

Here's an Aussie-bashing article by Patrick West. Apparently Australia is nothing like Neighbours (thank goodness!) but it's more like Kath and Kim (hmm).

And here's a response from Aussie journalist Guy Rundle.

The best ice-cream ever

January 2007

This was a bad month in terms of self-control around book stores. I feel compelled to point out, however, that many of these books were bought at bargain prices at one of Canberra's fantastic second-hand or seconds book stores! It's such a long list that I also felt compelled to divide it up into categories:

Vaguely PhD-related books:

• Jason Bardi, The Calculus Wars: Newton, Leibniz and the Greatest Mathematical Clash of All Time
• Antonia Fraser, Cromwell: Our Chief of Men
• Justin S. Holcomb (ed.), Christian Theologies of Scripture
• Margaret J. Osler (ed.), Rethinking the Scientific Revolution
• Simon Schama, A History of Britain 2: 1603-1776, The British Wars
• Margo Todd (ed.), Reformation to Revolution: Politics and Religion in Early Modern England
• David Tylden-Wright, John Aubrey: A Life

For somewhat scholarly interest:

• Amir D. Azcel, Descartes' Secret Notebook
• Veronica Buckley, Christina, Queen of Sweden
• Norman F. Cantor, In the Wake of the Plague
• Peter Dear, The Intelligibility of Nature: How Science Makes Sense of the World
• Michael Ruse, Darwinism and Its Discontents

Just for fun:

• Matthew Pearl, The Poe Shadow
• Alan Wall, The Lightning Cage
• Oscar Wilde, The Importance of Being Earnest And Other Plays
• Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

Books read:

• Susanna Gregory, A Masterly Murder
• Amir D. Azcel, Descartes' Secret Notebook
• Most of Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion - I haven't managed to finish it yet because I keep wanting to throw it across the room...

Most likely there were more books I read in January, but I've forgotten them now...

Ouch!

I was unwell on Monday night (a migraine sparked, I think, by donating blood) so I missed my Moore College lecture on Romans. The lecturer was kind enough to return my assignment by mail, and I received it yesterday. The assignment was to write 500 words on "What is Romans about?" I posted the essay on my blog a little while back. Sure, it's not the best essay I've ever written, and I guess I didn't cover absolutely everything, but I didn't realise it was bad enough to warrant a mark of 10... out of 20! That's the worst mark I've ever received on an essay. Ouch.

A big black horse and a cherry tree

Absolutely loving this album!

2007 Templeton Prize

This year's Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities has been awarded to the Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor. It's a nice change - the last 8 recipients of the prize have been scientists.

The Templeton Prize is the world's largest monetary prize awarded to an individual, valued at £800,000. Given the area I work in, it's an aim (or rather, a dream) of mine to win this prize some day. Although, I was more keen when it was called the Templeton Prize for Progress in Science and Religion.

Charles Taylor has also achieved one of my other aims - he presented the Gifford Lectures in 1999.

You can read Professor Taylor's statement upon receiving the prize here.

A new superhero and a new calling

Inspired by an email conversation with Matt, and reading a couple of articles with titles* that reminded me of Harry Potter books, I have decided that I should write a series of books about a new superhero called Henry More. I've already dreamt about looking for action figures of the Cambridge Platonists, so this is only a small step further!

Here are my titles so far:

• Henry More and the Spirit of Nature
• Henry More and the Judaic Cabbala
• Henry More and the Antidote Against Atheism
• Henry More and the Materialist Hobbists
• Henry More and the Theistic Pagans

I think I've found my new calling!

---
Update: I've just come up with another title! "Henry More and the Latitude-Men." Maybe the Latitude-Men can be his faithful sidekicks...

I think my PhD is starting to have an effect on my sanity. Starting to? Maybe not...

* "Henry More and the limits of mechanism" by Alan Gabbey, and "Henry More and the Scientific Revolution" by A. Rupert Hall, both in Sarah Hutton (ed.), Henry More (1614-1687): Tercentenary Studies, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1990.

Celebrating International Women's Day

My mother's cousin, Valya, called from the Ukraine this evening to with Mum and I a happy International Women's Day. I was a little surprised until my mother explained to me that it's a big deal in Russia - it's a national holiday, women are honoured and receive gifts... Russia was one of the earliest countries to celebrate International Women's Day, and it was a strike by Russian women leading to the abdication the Czar and women receiving the right to vote that led to March 8 being declared International Women's Day. What a wonderful country!


Some highlights of the history of International Women's Day:

The idea of an international women's day was proposed at a Socialist convention in Geneva in 1910. In 1911, International Women's Day (IWD) was honoured the first time in Austria, Denmark, Germany and Switzerland on 19 March. More than one million women and men attended IWD rallies campaigning for women's rights to work, vote, be trained, to hold public office and end discrimination.


On the eve of World War I campaigning for peace, Russian women observed their first International Women's Day on the last Sunday in February 1913. In 1914 further women across Europe held rallies to campaign against the war and to express women's solidarity.

On the last Sunday of February 1917, Russian women began a strike for "bread and peace" in response to the death over 2 million Russian soldiers in war. Opposed by political leaders the women continued to strike until four days later the Czar was forced to abdicate and the provisional Government granted women the right to vote. The date the women's strike commenced was Sunday 23 February on the Julian calendar then in use in Russia. This day on the Gregorian calendar in use elsewhere was 8 March.



IWD is now an official holiday in Armenia, Russia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Vietnam. The tradition sees men honouring their mothers, wives, girlfriends, colleagues, etc with flowers and small gifts. In some countries IWD has the equivalent status of Mother's Day where children give small presents to their mothers and grandmothers.


The new millennium has witnessed a significant change and attitudinal shift in both women's and society's thoughts about women's equality and emancipation. Many from a younger generation feel that 'all the battles have been won for women' while many feminists from the 1970's know only too well the longevity and ingrained complexity of patriarchy. With more women in the boardroom, greater equality in legislative rights, and an increased critical mass of women's visibility as impressive role models in every aspect of life, one could think that women have gained true equality. The unfortunate fact is that women are still not paid equally to that of their male counterparts, women still are not present in equal numbers in business or politics, and globally women's education, health and the violence against them is worse than that of men.


However, great improvements have been made. We do have female astronauts and prime ministers, school girls are welcomed into university, women can work and have a family, women have real choices. And so the tone and nature of IWD has, for the past few years, moved from being a reminder about the negatives to a celebration of the positives.

International Women's Day

What a fantastic opportunity for a few posts on one of my favourite soapbox topics - feminism.

Women's rights are human rights

Ainsley Hayes (from the West Wing) on why she opposes the Equal Rights Amendment:

Because it's humiliating. A new amendment we vote on declaring that I am equal under the law to a man? I'm mortified to discover there's reason to believe I wasn't before. I am a citizen of this country. I am not a special subset in need of your protection. I do not have to have my rights handed down to me by a bunch of old, white men. The same Article 14 that protects you protects me, and I went to law school just to make sure.



Jo March (from Little Women) on why women should vote:

I find it poor logic to say that women should vote because they are good. Men do not vote because they are good; they vote because they are male, and women should vote, not because we are angels and men are animals, but because we are human beings and citizens of this country.