Sunspots 978

Things that I have spotted that may be of interest to others: 

SciTech Daily reports that fish can recognize and react to human divers.

Naturalis Historia concludes a series on the Bible and the geology of the Dead Sea,

ZDNet describes 10 on-line sites that carry free, or inexpensive digital books.

NPR and other outlets report on progress towards bringing live mammoths back, Their work has involved changing the genes of mice, so that they have long, fuzzy hair, and are able to use fat efficiently to keep warm.

Neuroscience News reports that detecting pain and itch is accomplished with two different sets of neurons.

NPR tries to keep track of President Trump's tariffs.

Thanks for reading!

Sunspots 759

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

Christianity: FiveThirtyEight on the decline in connection with religion among millennials.

Christianity Today reports on a study of sermon length in various Christian churches.
 
Education: (and Humor) Listverse on ten silly English words.

You should look at these maps, in a post from Listverse. They will probably change the way you think about the world.

Environment: (And Christianity) Christianity Today reports on efforts, by the World Evangelical Alliance, to use solar power for churches.

Health: NPR reports that exposure to green light may be a treatment for pain, such as that from migraine headaches.

Politics: According to Relevant, President Trump, in yet another attempt to stop immigration, has issued an executive order prohibiting resettlement, unless local government agrees. An evangelical group has petitioned governors to allow such resettlement. Some governors have agreed.

FiveThirtyEight has a great essay on what's what with the two major political parties. Democrats, it says, are less about identity groups, more about ideology, than they used to be, and Republicans are more about identity groups and less about ideology, than they used to be.

Science: (or something) WHNS-TV reports that a recent flurry of attacks on horses, in the field, were due to wild hogs. Here's an earlier report on the attacks.

The Scientist reports on feather-eating lice -- they've been around a long time, like on dinosaurs.

The graphic used in these posts is from NASA, hence, it is free to use like this.
 
Thanks for looking!

Animal suffering in the Old Testament

Jeremiah 14:1 The word of Yahweh that came to Jeremiah concerning the drought. 14:2 Judah mourns, and its gates languish, they sit in black on the ground; and the cry of Jerusalem is gone up. 14:3 Their nobles send their little ones to the waters: they come to the cisterns, and find no water; they return with their vessels empty; they are disappointed and confounded, and cover their heads. 14:4 Because of the ground which is cracked, because no rain has been in the land, the plowmen are disappointed, they cover their heads. 14:5 Yes, the hind also in the field calves, and forsakes her young, because there is no grass. 14:6 The wild donkeys stand on the bare heights, they pant for air like jackals; their eyes fail, because there is no herbage. 14:7 Though our iniquities testify against us, work for your name’s sake, Yahweh; for our backslidings are many; we have sinned against you. (World English Bible, public domain. See Joel 1 for a similar passage.)

The above passage indicates a time of animal suffering in Israel, as a result of a drought. Apparently the drought was a consequence of sinfulness in Israel.

For centuries, people have wrestled with the question of suffering in the world. This post will not attempt to present a solution to those wrestlings. However, one aspect of suffering, not as commonly dealt with as human suffering, or, in particular, my suffering, is the suffering of animals. There are at least two important questions related to this topic. The first is the general question: "How could a good God allow animals to suffer?" I refer you to this post, by BioLogos, on this topic.

The second question is "How could God have used natural selection, which involves animal death, to bring about the present diversity of animals?" and the related "How could God have used millions of years of natural selection to bring about the life forms we now have?" The second question implies an argument for young-earth creationism -- "wouldn't it have been more merciful for God to have specially created each type of animal a few thousand years ago, than to have used natural selection for millions of years, to accomplish basically the same thing?"

A few remarks on that subject. First, the vast majority of land/air dwelling organisms are not animals, but plants. Second, natural selection does not always require animal suffering. In many, maybe most cases, animals die of old age without having reproduced successfully, rather than being torn limb from limb by a predator. In many others, they die of starvation, or cold, or disease, or parasites. Some of these deaths may be painful, but perhaps some aren't. (I won't claim, as some have, that animals cannot suffer.) This post, again, from BioLogos, considers suffering and natural selection, and probably brings up ideas you haven't had before.

Some young-earth creationists argue that God wouldn't have allowed natural selection, over a long period, to bring about the organisms which are alive today, in part because God doesn't like animal suffering. But some, maybe the very same, young-earth creationists argue that the Ark held no more than about a thousand different kinds of land animals, of all kinds, and the variety that we have today is due to natural selection, acting much more rapidly than mainstream scientists believe it did. But if that was true (and there are good reasons for doubting it) then lots of animal suffering and death must have occurred after the Ark landed.

Back to animal suffering. If the Flood was, indeed, world-wide (many Bible scholars doubt this) then there would have been massive, world-wide, animal suffering from drowning.

There are many references to hunting and fishing in the Bible, without, so far as I know, a single condemnation of these practices. Jesus, Himself, may have caught fish. 

The Old Testament has lots of references to the use of live animals, which were killed, as part of the rituals of sacrifice. Leviticus 4 is one of these. See 2 Chronicles 29 for a description of the sacrifice of thousands of animals on a single occasion.

Job 4 mentions animal suffering: 10 The roaring of the lion,
    and the voice of the fierce lion,
    the teeth of the young lions, are broken.
11 The old lion perishes for lack of prey.
    The cubs of the lioness are scattered abroad.

So does Psalm 34:10 The young lions do lack, and suffer hunger,
    but those who seek Yahweh shall not lack any good thing.

I see no scriptural justification for being cruel to animals. In fact, there is plenty of scripture teaching that we should care for them.

Thanks for reading!

"Creation" - the movie, Darwin, pain and suffering

I did not see the movie, Creation, which is about the life of Charles Darwin, when it came out. I may not see it. One aspect of Darwin's life that was important to him, but doesn't get mentioned much in our time, is that he had a beloved daughter, Annie, who got sick and died at age 10. Apparently the movie considers that at some length. The Wikipedia article on the film is here.

I have read a good article on the movie, written from a Christian perspective. The article is largely sympathetic to the film, and, for example, points out that some of the medicine of Darwin's time would now be considered quackery. The article also considers the conflict between the Christian faith of Darwin's wife, and the perceived implications of Darwin's theory.

I'm not clear as to whether the film considers that the death of Darwin's daughter was an example of selection against the unfit, but the article mentions that. (Darwin and his wife were related, hence their children were likely to have gotten a double dose of some bad recessive genes.)

Two other aspects of the article are important. The first is the consideration of a problem that has vexed believers since the Fall, namely the question of how pain and suffering in the world is compatible with the existence of a loving, omnipotent God. Here's the most important passage in the article:
Regardless of what philosophical problems Christians may have with the notion of God’s sovereignty and evil, our first commitment is to discover what the Bible says about the issue, not to presuppose what can and cannot be proposed philosophically. Clearly, the Bible claims that God somehow ordains natural disasters and both good and evil in such a way that man’s responsibility is not diminished, nor is God himself engaged in evil. Just how this is so is not explained to us.

The author then goes on to discuss Bible passages which are what the Bible has to say about it.

Another idea that I didn't realize that Darwin had had is mentioned in the article, namely that Darwin considered the possibility that, although evolution seems to work through blind chance, it is possible that God foresaw all of this, and made it possible, by constructing the universe in such a way as to bring it about by chance processes.

Thanks for reading. The movie sounds, from the article, like it is thought-provoking and far more worth seeing than many a film. AllMovie is less generous, but praises the portrayal of Darwin's daughter, whom is described as Darwin's intellectual superior and most penetrating critic. Read the article.

Sunspots 213

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

Science:
Wired reports that genetic modification has not only produced marmosets with skin that glows green in the dark, but that one such animal sired offspring with the same trait.

Wired also has a report on how scientists are looking for planets in other solar systems that might support life.

Philosophy:
(or something) Slate has an essay on whether or not fish feel pain.

Christianity:
Christianity Today has a book review of a book that considers the nature of spiritual experiences -- what is happening in our brain when we have one?

Image source (public domain)

Where is God when things hurt us badly? pt. 4

This is the fourth in a series of posts. The most recent is here.

I realized, this morning during church (The pastor was speaking about Job, and while I was in that book of the Bible, I sneaked a peek at the NIV Reference Bible's introduction to the book.) that my previous posts had left out a very significant factor.

The question raised by the title of these posts is a thorny one, the question of theodicy. A person who commented on those was not convinced that I have an answer to the question that can be defended by argument. I'm not sure that I do either. I believe that I do have an answer from experience. The answer is that God's love never deserts us, not matter what.

The significant factor that I left out will not improve my chances at an argument, but, to the Christian, it's significant. That is that we and God are not the only actors in the drama. There's also Satan. Satan, although by no means as powerful as God, has some power, and wishes us no good. He has warped the world so that it contains germs, diseases, poisons, cancer, and the like. He also tempts humans to do evil, and, all too often, we succumb.

Well, doesn't the existence of Satan mean that God is not omnipotent? Why would a loving God allow the existence of such a being? I don't think I have a complete answer to that. One possibility is that God is giving Satan, himself, a chance to repent. Another is that God allows Satan to bring misery into the world in punishment for the sins of humanity. A third, illustrated by Job, is that God allows Satan to hurt good people so that their triumph over such hurt can be an inspiration to others. And, fourthly, God allows testing because that refines character. These four possibilities are not mutually exclusive.

To emphasize the last point, here's a quotation from C. S. Lewis:
When a man turns to Christ and seems to be getting on pretty well (in the sense that some of his bad habits are now corrected), he often feels that it would now be natural if things went fairly smoothly. When troubles come along--illnesses, money troubles, new kinds of temptation--he is disappointed. These things, he feels, might have been necessary to rouse him and make him repent in his bad old days; but why now? Because God is forcing him on or up, to a higher level: putting him into situations where he will have to be very much braver, or more patient, or more loving, than he ever dreamed of being before. It seems to us all unnecessary: but that is because we have not yet had the slightest notion of the tremendous thing He means to make of us. C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity: What One Must Believe to Be a Christian. New York: Macmillan, 1952. p. 174.

And one from James 1:
2 Count it all joy, my brothers*, when you meet trials of various kinds, 3 for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. 4 And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. (ESV)
*There is an ESV text note, indicating that "brothers" can mean "brothers and sisters."

Thanks for reading.

Does a fetus feel pain?

My answer is, simply, "I don't know." I don't think anyone else does, either.

A recent article in the Journal of the American Medican Association (abstract here -- entire article not freely available) concludes the following:

Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester. Little or no evidence addresses the effectiveness of direct fetal anesthetic or analgesic techniques. Similarly, limited or no data exist on the safety of such techniques for pregnant women in the context of abortion. Anesthetic techniques currently used during fetal surgery are not directly applicable to abortion procedures.

The above is hardly a firm denial of fetal capacity to feel pain (nor, of course, does it show that fetuses do feel pain). However, the climate being what it is, considerable controversy has ensued. It seems that some of the investigators may have a vested interest in abortions. See Christianity Today for a report on the matter.

Pain, itself, is notoriously difficult to define. It is also difficult or impossible to understand how we personally experience anything, let alone how another being, human or animal, (see here for interesting article on thought in dogs) does. However, however pain is defined, I can't believe that zygotes or very early embryos can experience it, inasmuch as they presumably lack the ability to experience anything. Likewise, it certainly seems as if newborns can experience pain. Somewhere between fertilization and birth, I would guess that most fetuses develop the capacity to experience pain. At what point, I don't know.

The best on-line reference I have found, attempting to present several points of view, is here. It doesn't seem to be a response to the JAMA article. The question goes back before the 21st century!