Fantastic literature as a preferred medium for presenting Christian truth?

In a previous post, I considered aspects of Christianity in fantastic literature. I said that I did not think that fantastic literature was any more suitable than any other kind of literature for presenting fiction with a Christian world-view. However, in this post, I muse on the possibility that some Christian truths may be better presented in fantastic literature than in any other kind of fiction, and ask you, the reader, to respond, with other examples.

I believe that fantastic literature is an excellent place to portray an unfallen planet, inhabited by one or more unfallen rational, sentient species. C. S. Lewis did this superbly, in my opinion, in his Out of the Silent Planet (Malacandra had three such species). James Blish also considered this, from a different standpoint, in his A Case of Conscience.

Lilith, by George MacDonald, considers submission in ways that I am not sure would be possible in more realistic fiction.

Susan Palwick considers the matter of seeing Christ in other people in her The Necessary Beggar. The fantastic nature of the story makes this possible in a unique way -- the ghost of an alien speaks to a fundamentalist preacher and his faith is renewed.

I have discussed the question of vengeance in the works of Jack Vance, not because Vance writes from a Christian world-view -- he doesn't -- but because Vance uses fantasy to portray vengeance in many different ways.

Are there Christian truths that would lend themselves especially to portrayal in fantastic fiction? Are there authors who have used fantastic fiction especially well to consider some Christian truth? Let me know what you think, please.

Thanks for reading.

Jesus and germs

Jesus was no "Monk." For those who haven't seen this TV show, Adrian Monk is an obsessive-compulsive crime solver. One of his obsessions concerns germs. He is constantly wiping his hands with disinfectant wipes. He's not the only one. Our local grocery furnishes wipes, so that you can wipe the handle of the grocery cart. Disinfectant wipes and liquids are big business.

Jesus wasn't that compulsive about cleanliness:
Luke 11:37 While Jesus was speaking, a Pharisee asked him to dine with him, so he went in and reclined at table. 38 The Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash before dinner. 39 And the Lord said to him, “Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. 40 You fools! Did not he who made the outside make the inside also? (ESV)

Jesus was making a point, of course, about the inner unrighteousness of the Pharisees, and how it canceled all their outer cleanliness. I need to be careful that I'm not a Pharisee on this point. However, some of us are probably way too particular about germs. How did the Israelites, Sacajawea, Julius Caesar, Gandhi, Winston Churchill, Booker T. Washington and Joan of Arc get along without disinfectant wipes? They seem to have made it all right without them. North American society, no doubt encouraged by the makers of disinfectant products, seems to have gone overboard on this matter. Some scientists even claim that keeping our little kids from germs contributes to their susceptibility to allergies. I'm not sure about that claim, but I am sure that increased exposure to disinfectants is selecting germs for resistance to those very products.

I noticed this passage as a consequence of following the ESV on-line Bible reading for a day in April.

Thanks for reading.

And God created neutrons

I don't really know why God created neutrons, but I'm going to muse about this matter. Neutrons are one of the sub-atomic particles we first discovered. They were found to exist in the nucleus of most atoms.

Neutrons are one of (we think) a veritable "zoo" of subatomic particles. We now believe that neutrons are made up of three smaller quarks. Even though they are not considered to be fundamental (that is, basic building blocks, which cannot be broken down), the Wikipedia article on neutrons still lists them, with protons, as being one of the two building blocks of an atomic nucleus. They have no electrical charge, so do not interact with other particles in some of the ways that charged particles do. Why, then, did God make these anonymous entities? Obviously, we can only speculate about this, but I shall do so.

I guess that the main reason God made neutrons is that they make it possible for atomic nuclei to exist. (Except for the most common isotope of Hydrogen, Hydrogen1, which has no neutrons in its nucleus, just a proton.) Why do I say this? In the first place, atomic nuclei are extremely small. The Wikipedia article that is linked to earlier in this paragraph tells us that such nuclei are about 1/100,000 the size of the atom itself. Suppose that you were shrunk to 1/100,000 of your current size. You would be almost invisible to the naked eye. The nucleus is not only very small, but is extremely dense, roughly 10,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms per cubic meter. (A cubic meter of water would have a mass of about 1,000 kilograms.) The nucleus is packed! Or, in other words, you and I are mostly space, because most of an atom is basically empty, except for the tiny nucleus, and we are made of atoms. It's no wonder that some sub-atomic particles can pass right through us without hitting anything!

Not only is a nucleus dense, but electrical charges are concentrated there. Each proton has a single positive charge. All atoms, except for Hydrogen, have more than one proton. That means that from 2 to 92 positive charges are jammed into an exceedingly tiny volume. Like charges repel each other. So how is it possible that these protons can exist together in the nucleus? It isn't easy, but the presence of neutrons seems to make that possible. In other words, there is a force that holds the nucleus together, and it is stronger than the electrical repulsion forces that would break it apart.

If there were only one proton in all atomic nuclei, the only type of atom would be Hydrogen. As fine as these are, and as important, the complexity of matter, especially living matter, would be impossible if there weren't many types of atoms, not just one. Suppose you had to prepare a blog post, a poem, or a business document, with no letters but an h! Written communication would be impossible.

Without neutrons, you wouldn't be here. The hereditary information that came from your parents couldn't have existed, in the form of DNA. Without neutrons, your life would be dull and dry, assuming you somehow existed as you do now without them. There would be no flavor molecules, no sugars, no caffeine. There would be no semiconductors, no computers. No musical instruments, no paintings, no books, no flowers. Nothing but a cloud of Hydrogen.

I'm thankful for neutrons.

I don't understand everything about nuclear physics, by a long shot. For more detail on these topics, check the links in this post.

Thanks for reading.

Templeton Foundation: "Does Science Make Belief in God Obsolete?"

My personal answer, of course, is "no!"

The Templeton Foundation has posted a web page, which I have not yet fully explored, with the title indicated above. There are statements from a variety of people, giving different answers. I expect that this will be an important resource on questions of faith and science.

I found the essay by philosopher Mary Midgley to be especially insightful. (The essays all seem to be brief.)

Thanks for reading.

Sunspots 159

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:

Humor:
(or something) K has tried a new kind of fruit, with photos.

Science:
Wired on a giant squid, with the largest eye ever studied.

Literature:
An interview with Patricia A. McKillip, wherein she answers questions about her writing habits. Spoiler: she listens to Telemann while writing.

Christianity:
Bonnie on how to keep up with what's going on in the world (or not).

Russell on how men look at women, and how they should (or shouldn't).

Slate has a disturbing article (disturbing because of what it says about some Christians) about alternative Christian culture. For example, I had no idea that there was a "Christian pro wrestling." What makes it Christian? Do they hit each other's heads with softer chairs?

Image source (public domain)

Warning against idolatry in 2008

Luke 18:9 He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: 10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ 13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.” (ESV)

It is often pointed out that the Old Testament commandments against idolatry, if they were made today, might be made against worshiping ourselves. Here, Jesus spoke of people, who, like us, are tempted to believe that we are self-sufficient, a form of self-worship. May I never do that! (But I know that I have, sometimes.)

I noticed this passage as a consequence of following the ESV on-line Bible reading for a day in April.

I'm cheating a little. I've been posting reflections on my Bible reading on Sundays, but I may not have access to a computer for several days, so am posting on May 1, 2008, but telling Blogger that I'm posting on May 4. We'll see how that turns out.

Thanks for reading.

Sunspots 158

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:

Science:
An amazing case of rapid evolution in lizards.

Wired reports that the South Koreans have cloned dogs for drug-sniffing.

Wired also reports that the US Congress has passed a bill prohibiting discrimination because of genetic makeup. The President is expected to sign the bill. (Perhaps already has)

A news source on stem cells , that seems to be kept up-to-date.

Politics:
Slate says that the real problem with all those mortgages was very simple: widespread lying.

Computing:
What CNet calls the 100 top webware applications. These included the Firefox browser, YouTube, and a lot more.

Literature:
From Christianity Today movies: a suggestion that Prince Caspian, the character, has a lot in common with C. S. Lewis, the author.

Christianity:
In Christianity Today, Charles Colson and Anne Morse warn about Christians being too concerned about pets. (They understand that some concern is appropriate, but question the appropriateness of healing services for pets, for one thing.) Say they:
These are signs of Christians weakening their best defense against activists on what constitutes the distinctiveness of humans.

Image source (public domain)

Ursula K. Le Guin on reading, art, and the Web

You can look at pictures or listen to music or read a book on your computer, but these artifacts are made accessible by the Web, not created by it and not intrinsic to it. Ursula K. Le Guin, "Staying Awake: Notes on the alleged decline of reading," Harper's, January 2008, pp. 33-38. Quote is from p. 37.

Thanks for reading this, which, originally, did not come from the WWW.

Ursula K. Le Guin's newest book

Ursula K. Le Guin is one of the great authors currently writing in English. She uses words well, without being showy, or long-winded. She is interested in the craft of writing. She creates splendid characters. She imagines "what if?" situations, and writes about important themes. She is responsible for the invention of the concept of a communication device, the ansible, that is now commonly used in science fiction writing.

Le Guin was interviewed on National Public Radio's All Things Considered on April 26. The interview includes a brief reading from her book, Lavinia, by the author. It also describes the book, which is based on work by the ancient poet, Virgil. Le Guin said that the book is, in part, about the dreadfulness of war. The link to the interview goes to a page which includes an excerpt from the book. (Lavinia was published on April 21.)

Although written about the past, I am guessing that the book will be fantastic, in some ways.

Thanks for reading. Listen to Le Guin.

The most sexist verse in the Old Testament?

Here it is, after two verses to give it a little context:
Judges 5:28 “Out of the window she peered,
the mother of Sisera wailed through the lattice:
‘Why is his chariot so long in coming?
Why tarry the hoofbeats of his chariots?’
29 Her wisest princesses answer,
indeed, she answers herself,
30 ‘Have they not found and divided the spoil?—
A womb or two for every man;
spoil of dyed materials for Sisera,
spoil of dyed materials embroidered,
two pieces of dyed work embroidered for the neck as spoil?’ (ESV)

A womb or two for every man? Huh? So I checked the NIV, and the KJV. They don't use "womb." But a check of the original language, courtesy of the Blueletter Bible, indicates that there is a valid reason for the ESV translation.

So, this verse, part of a song celebrating God's help in delivering Israel, speaks of captive women as if they were wombs, not people. Wow!

I must remember the context. Judges 5 is a song of praise to God, attributed to Deborah and Barak, after they jointly led an attack against the army of Jabin of Hazor, which was led by Sisera. Part of what they are celebrating is the killing of Sisera by Jael, wife of one of the descendants of the father-in-law of Moses. So this is hardly the statement of an Old Testament male chauvinist -- it's being said by a woman, who led Israel (Judges 4:4), even in battle, and it includes celebration of a valiant act of war by a woman. It's possible that what Deborah and Barak were saying was that one of the reasons that Jabin's army was evil was the way they treated captive women. I don't know. I'm not sure that the Israelites didn't also treat them that way.

It is also doubtful that Deborah and Barak had any personal knowledge of what Sisera's mother, or her princesses, may have said. They may have made all that part up. However, these verses are part of the Bible, so must have some validity.

I noticed this passage as a consequence of following the ESV on-line Bible reading for a day in April.

Thanks for reading.

Darwin on God's revelation in nature

The works of Charles Darwin have been placed on-line. I decided that I wanted to see an on-line copy of his most famous work, The Origin of Species. The following met my eye, on page ii of the work:

"But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this—we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws."

WHEWELL: Bridgewater Treatise.

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once."

BUTLER: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

"To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both."

BACON: Advancement of Learning.

The above three quotes form almost all of the second page of the sixth edition of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species. (1872)

I can only speculate as to why Darwin began this famous book in this way. I am not so thorough a scholar as to know the original source of any of these statements, or their contexts. But these quotations read as if Darwin:

1) Understood that a God who can establish general laws, which caused His creation to unfold in desired ways, is at least as wonderful as a God who intervenes in His creation over and over. (God could, of course, do both -- the quote doesn't say that, but I am.)

2) Believed that things we take for granted, like, say, photosynthesis or that three states of water can all exist at normal temperatures, are as wonderful as miracles, or more so.

3) Understood that learning about nature can be a way of learning about God.

No doubt I am reading a lot of myself into the above! I am not proposing that Darwin would have been comfortable with the Intelligent Design movement (much of which is not comfortable with Darwin) but that he seemed to understand that there might have been a Designer. I am uncomfortable with much of the Intelligent Design movement myself, but believe that there was and is an Intelligent Designer.

Thanks for reading.

Expelled, the movie: two reviews

I have not seen Expelled, the documentary movie featuring Ben Stein, currently showing in theaters. I have read some reviews of it. Two reviews by Christians seem to be especially thorough.

The title of the movie suggests its purpose, namely to prove that the concept of Intelligent Design has been unfairly excluded from schools and academic discussion.

Higgaion and He Lives, in their reviews, agree on the following:
The Intelligent Design movement is not scientific, in spite of the movie. It has not been clearly defined, and has presented no experiments testing its basic premise.

The common claim, by the Intelligent Design movement, that ID is not religious in nature, is clearly refuted by the movie. (This claim is made to bolster the claim that ID has a place in public school science classes.) It is religious.

Intelligent Design has not been unfairly excluded from academia.

Higgaion refutes the claim, made in the movie, that Darwin's ideas led to Nazism. (I confess -- I used to claim that myself, years and years ago.)

He Lives (whose author is a physicist) concludes that many Christians, upon watching the movie (which seems to have been mostly marketed to Christians) will conclude that science is an enemy of the faith. It isn't.

Thanks for reading.

Sunspots 157

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:

Humor:
From The Onion: The U. S. Citizenry has agreed to stop talking about politics.

Science:
Slate on "How to really change your kid's behavior."

Slate also asks why we worry so much about relatively unimportant agents that might cause cancer (like cell phone use) rather than the important ones.

And, again from Slate, an essay on how incest is fairly common in nature .

From New Scientist, 24 misconceptions about evolution.

Politics:
(or something) Wired on how flying still beats driving, in four different ways.

Image source (public domain)

The religious implications of the second law of thermodynamics

I have updated my web page on "the implications of the second law of thermodynamics."

The implications have to do with the resurrection, with human diet, and with a great deal more.

The second law of thermodynamics is one of the most important scientific laws, perhaps the most important one.

I have attempted to write the page indicated in such a way that a reasonably intelligent non-scientist can read it, and understand it. I have also attempted to include views that do not agree with my own.

Thanks for reading this.