Sword and Sorcery fantasy: Not a bastion of democracy

I have previously posted on what is sometimes called Sword and Sorcery fantasy. That is, fantasy works set in pre-gunpowder societies, where bows and arrows and swords are the most common weapons, and where some sort of magic is used by some of the characters.

I am copying my list of favorite sword and sorcery fantasy works from the previous post:
"The Lord of the Rings"works by J. R. R. Tolkien
The Deed of Paksenarrion by Elizabeth Moon
The Chronicles of Prydain, by Lloyd Alexander
The Narnia books by C. S. Lewis
Works by Juliet Marillier
The Earthsea books by Ursula K. Le Guin
The Chalion novels, and the Sharing Knife tetralogy, by Lois McMaster Bujold
Most of the works of Patricia McKillip

These books, I believe, are all important, and have influenced other authors of fantasy works.

I'm sure that the observation is not being made for the first time, but I'll say it. The worlds used in these books do not have lands with democratic governments. There are rulers, almost always hereditary rulers, in these books.

In Tolkien's trilogy, Aragorn re-establishes a long line of hereditary kings of Gondor. Rohan also has hereditary rulers. In addition to the kings, or equivalents, in these human domains, there are also hereditary rulers among the elves and the dwarves. True, the hobbits seem to have a sort of society of equal opportunity, probably even electing some officials. But the appendices of the trilogy, and the other books, published after them, but about earlier times, have little to say about hobbits, but lots to say about elves and men.

Paksenarrion's deed is to place a king, a king with royal blood, on the throne.

In the Prydain books, an assistant pig-keeper becomes king. But the assistant pig-keeper has royal ancestry.

There is a line of hereditary rulers in the Narnia books.

There are clan chiefs in Marillier's works, and they seem to be hereditary.

There are kings in the Earthsea books. Arren, who has royal blood, takes the main throne, in Havnor, at the end of The Farthest Shore.

The Chalion books have hereditary kingships. The Sharing Knife works do not. There are leaders among the Lakewalkers, but they seem to get their positions on merit. The Farmers don't have kings.

McKillip's books have kings, or hereditary leaders with other titles.

Why kings? Why so little evidence of democracy? One answer is that Sword and Sorcery books are closely related to the human past, and most human societies of the past had hereditary rulers. Another is that fantasy of this type has had some influential English authors, and, of course, England, even today, has hereditary rulers. Is that a valid reason? I'm not sure. Moon, Alexander, Le Guin, Bujold and McKillip have mostly lived in the U. S. (Mariller is from New Zealand and Australia, and Lewis and Tolkien were English.)

I don't have a really good explanation, but it is interesting to muse about the relationship between Sword and Sorcery fantasy and the lack of democracy.

Thanks for reading.

What makes art Christian (or not)?

From a recent post by Jan:
Unfortunately, as Christians we’ve so bought into the idea that all creativity has to have a purpose, and that purpose is to lead people to Christ, that we can’t accept as “christian” that which hasn’t been completely neutered by a fish, dove or Bible verse.

Jan is commenting on an art gallery, which refused to include a photograph, illustrating part of the procession of Christ to the cross, because the photo, which was by a 10-year-old boy, was considered too violent. Jan provides a link to the photo. Her entire post, which is not much longer than this one, should be required reading.

Jan has followed up on this post here and here. I have written about what makes something Christian fiction here.

Read Jan's posts.

Conservatism: What it's about

The Free Dictionary gives these first two meanings of conservatism:

1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.

2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.

In discussing politics, or conservatism, if you want to have a hope of making sense, you have to define what you mean. That is not always done, unfortunately.

E. J. Dionne, Jr., in a recent syndicated column, wrote recently about conservatism. He seems to agree with the definitions above, and says, I believe correctly, that so-called conservatism, i. e., the Republicans, weren't usually at their finest during the recent debates about healthcare legislation. (The Democrats weren't, either, but that's another story.) Not all Republicans are conservative, and some Democrats are conservative.

Dionne, who is not a conservative himself, says that there have been three good and important characteristics of conservatives in the US. These are:

1) They are suspicious of grand plans to remake things, believing that such plans seldom, if ever, work to achieve the goals they were developed for, and that such plans have unfortunate serious unplanned consequences.

2) They respect traditional ways of doing things. As Dionne points out, this has been one of their largest weaknesses or faults, as in respecting slavery and racism, but it can also be a great strength.

3) A suspicion of human nature -- human nature is inherently prone to evil.

Dionne believes that, when Republicans, or pseudo-conservatives, questioned the effectiveness of plans to revise health care, they were at their conservative best. When they were screaming about "death panels," shouting racial epithets at Democratic legislators, claiming that passing health care legislation was the end of democracy as we know it, trumpeting that this was a government takeover while ignoring that medicare is a government healthcare plan that seems to work, or even threatening Democratic legislators with violence, they were at their non-conservative worst.

I think Dionne is right about all this. Some other cases where the Republicans have neglected conservative principles come to mind, but I'll not explore them here.

Thanks for reading.

Sunspots 253

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

Humor:(or something) According to CNN the new health care bill puts a 10% tax on use of tanning beds, immediately. Who knew? I guess this isn't funny to people who use tanning beds, or to the operators.

Science:Wired reports, and shows photos, of some very old trees. Some clonal groups of trees may be as much as 80,000 years old, or more.

The New York Times reviews a book that argues that genius is not nearly so much an accident of heredity as the result of dedicated work.




Image source (public domain)

Healing and Faith

"You do not have to be sick because God wants to heal you, and if you'll have faith, He will heal you!" (Tom Brown. There are other examples of the same sort of thing -- I hold no ill-will toward Tom Brown. His web page comes up early in a Google search.)

This man, probably from the best of motives, has some of the truth on this subject, but he doesn't have it all, and the truth he has presented can be dangerous. God does often want to heal us. Some people don't believe He can, and may sinfully lack faith. But being sick, or not being healed, isn't necessarily because we don't have enough faith. Equating not being healed with lack of faith is the dangerous aspect of this. Why do I say so? Here are five reasons:

1. 1 Kings 14 tells the story of Ahijah the prophet, and Abijah, the young son of one of the kings of Israel named Jeroboam. Abijah was sick, and the king sent his mother to Ahijah to ask about the future of this boy. Ahijah told his mother that the child would die of the sickness, but he also said this: "14:13 And all Israel shall mourn for him and bury him, for he only of Jeroboam shall come to the grave, because in him there is found something pleasing to the Lord, the God of Israel, in the house of Jeroboam." (ESV) This boy was said to have pleased the Lord, but he died of a sickness.

2. Then there's the story of Job. God allowed Satan to afflict Job physically, not because he was a sinner, but because He wanted Job to be an example of faith in spite of suffering endured. (Eventually, Job was healed.)

3. Paul advised Timothy, one of God's ministers, to drink wine, rather than water, because he was frequently sick (1 Timothy 5:23).

4. Paul, himself, certainly a man of faith, and one who had been God's instrument for miracles of healing, was afflicted, apparently physically, with something that God did not remove, even though Paul prayed that He would, presumably praying in faith. (2 Corinthians 12) Also, Paul left Trophimus behind, because Trophimus was sick (2 Timothy 4:20).

5. Although most of the early apostles, probably including Paul, died martyrs' deaths, apparently John didn't. We don't know how he died, but he most likely got sick and died (counting the deterioration of old age as a sickness). So have many wonderful, faithful, Christians throughout the years, including some who have prayed effectively for healing in others, and in themselves.

Christ healed everyone who came to Him for healing during His earthly ministry. Christians are told to pray for the sick. (James 5:14) God often allows healing now, through a miracle, through medical treatment, or the body's own restorative powers, but, based on the Bible, we shouldn't always expect it, or assume lack of faith when it doesn't happen.

Healing, if it comes, is not principally so we feel better, but so God can be glorified. Suffering, too, can show God's glory. It's wrong to preach that God always heals those who have faith. Tom Brown, and I, will probably die from some illness associated with aging, and I hope that both of us die as believers in God's redemption, and His occasional healing.

Thanks for reading.

On January 28, 2012, I added the last sentence of point 4, and some labels/tags. I thank Ken Schenck, who recently wrote a good, short article on this subject.

On January 14, 2014, I am adding a link to a post, quoting my late father, who argued, in a letter to my mother, that going to see doctors was not usually wrong for a believer.

Sunspots 252

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

Science:
He Lives explains what the Anthropic Principle does, and doesn't, do.

Politics:(or finance, or something) NPR buys into a toxic asset. (Remember the TARP funds?)

Sports:
A woman has been selected as a high school football head coach.

Christianity:Weekend Fisher discusses the "how much more" phrases of the Bible. (That post is the first of a series. Click on the Heart, Mind, Soul and Strength title to see her entire blog, and scroll down until you find other "much more" posts.)



Image source (public domain)

Richard Dawkins and 400 years of the King James Bible

I thank Julana for bringing these matters to my attention.

There is a 2011 Trust: Celebrating 400 years of the King James Bible, which has an on-line presence, even early in 2010. I am not sure of all that this organization is about, but they do have video of various persons reading from the KJV. As Julana pointed out, one participant is Richard Dawkins, who is reads from The Song of Songs.

I do not agree with Richard Dawkins on all points. He is a militant atheist. But I appreciate the fact that he took part in this project. I also have problems with those who claim that the King James Version is the only legitimate English Bible. The main problem is that English, itself, has changed. In fact, it has changed enough that the King James Version that we have in our house, that we access on-line, that the 2011 Trust celebrates, and that the Gideons distribute, is the version of 1769, not 1611. But I appreciate the KJV.

That version has had a great deal of positive influence on my life, and the lives of many others. It is worth celebrating.

Thanks for reading. Thanks for the links, Julana.

Why isn't there a Jewish Narnia or Middle-Earth?

I confess that I had never pondered that question, until reading an essay on that subject in what appears to be the first issue of something called The Jewish Review of Books, by Michael Weingrad.

Weingrad, clearly a Jew himself, is very familiar with C. S. Lewis, Tolkien, and has at least a nodding acquaintance with George MacDonald. The essay would have been worth reading if it had been only a consideration of those authors. But Weingrad attempts to answer the question, and his answer is multiple.

Historically, he says, Jews do not view the middle ages, which have so influenced Sword and Sorcery fantasy, because they were often persecuted, even put to the sword, during that period.

Weingrad says that the Jewish religion is less open to paganism than Christianity. (For a little more on that matter, see here.) Most fantasy literature has some pagan elements. (Bacchus appears in Narnia, for example.)

The author also says that Jews have "invested in modernity," and that, Weinberg points out, may explain the abundance of Jewish science-fiction authors, including Isaac Asimov and Robert Silverberg, to name two of the most prominent. (I would classify much of Silverberg's writing as fantasy, rather than science-fiction.) See here for more on Silverberg and religion.

This is a fine essay, and I'm glad that I found it, and read it.

C. S. Lewis on Intelligent Design (in Narnia)

All this time the Lion's song, and his stately prowl, to and fro, backwards and forwards, was going on. . . . Polly was finding the song more and more interesting because she thought she was beginning to see the connection between the music and the things that were happening. When a line of dark firs sprang up on a ridge about a hundred yards away she felt that they were connected with a series of deep, prolonged notes which the Lion had sung a second before. And when he burst into a rapid series of lighter notes she was not surprised to see primroses suddenly appearing in every direction. Thus, with an unspeakable thrill, she felt quite certain that all the things were coming (as she said) "out of the Lion's head." When you listened to his song you heard the things he was making up; when you looked around you, you saw them.  - C. S. Lewis, The Magician's Nephew, New York: Macmillan, 1955, pp. 94-95.

The Bible and "Social Justice"

Quadrilateral Thoughts, a fine blog, has a post listing a number of Biblical references to Social Justice. A good, and timely, reminder.

"Soon" in Revelation 1:1, from He Lives

In a recent post, He Lives points out that there is a "soon" (or equivalent word, depending on the translation) in Revelation 1:1, and discusses the implications of that.

Thanks, He Lives!

Sunspots 251

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

Science:
NPR reports that mosquitos fatten up for the winter. Who knew?

Sports:
The Sporting News reports that a substitute really did come in and play like a superstar, as Louisville beat Syracuse, with Kyle Kuric scoring 22 points in the second half against the number 1 team in men's college basketball.

Politics:
The Toronto Globe and Mail reports that Sarah Palin's family used to use the Canadian healthcare system.



Image source (public domain)

Ken Schenck on the separate existence of the soul

Most Christians accept, uncritically, that we have a soul that is separate from the body. Some Christians believe that there are three entities that are parts of us, namely the body, the soul, and the spirit. Have Christians always believed these things? Is it necessary to believe them now?

Ken Schenck, a theologian at Indiana Wesleyan University, has posted on the view of the relationship between the body and the soul throughout history, among Christians, and their Jewish predecessors. In his part 1, he claims that the idea of a soul, disembodied and separate from the body, is a Greek introduction, not a Christian one. In part 2, he continues, and says that Daniel 12:2-3 is the only passage in the Old Testament that indicates a belief in an afterlife. In his part 3, he concludes, indicating that there is evidence of belief in an afterlife, and perhaps in a soul separate from the body, in the New Testament. But he is not sure that the New Testament writers believe in such an entity. He says this: "Because the Bible gives us varied pictures of human psychology and of the afterlife, we probably should not consider any of these pictures absolute."

I have written extensively about this matter, in a three-part on-line document. See here if interested.

Thanks for reading.

Avatar

I finally got around to seeing Avatar, the movie that uses computer technology to produce a film supposedly set on the large moon of a non-solar planet, and with many characters who are depicted as about ten feet tall, blue-skinned, with tails. This is the Wikipedia article on the film. This is the film's official web site. According to that site, it has been nominated for nine Academy Awards, including Best Picture. The film is said to have earned more money than any movie ever made. This is partly because of inflated prices. But let's put it this way. My wife and I saw the movie two months and one day after its release, and there was a pretty good crowd present for a weekday matinee. Most movies are no longer shown, and headed for DVD release, that length of time after their opening.

An Avatar is a physical being, biological, rather than robotic, which is controlled remotely by a human. The hero of the movie, Avatar, is a paraplegic who controls an alien body, or a body that is very much like that of the aliens. One thing that puzzled me about the movie -- perhaps I missed something -- is that the hero is unskilled as a scientist, and, presumably, too handicapped to have been much use as a military person. So why was he on board the ship that went to the alien moon in the first place? (His twin brother was also on the ship, and died in transit, so the hero is drafted to control the avatar that his brother would have controlled.) The concept is not new to Avatar. I remember reading, at least four decades ago, a story about an astronaut who controlled a body down on, or near, the surface of Jupiter, from a base some distance away from that surface. I can't recall the title of the story, nor the author's name.

There have been a number of reviews of the movie, most of which I have not read. Here's the one from Christianity Today movies. The reviewer is especially impressed by the technical excellence of the film. He does mention spiritual matters, and warns about pagan influences in the film, but is not turned off by them. (The Na'vi have a religion, and we see some of their worship.) The reviewer also mentions a key point, in my view, namely that the Na'vi can become physically and mentally linked to the animals they ride, be these land mammals (?) or dragon-like flying creatures. The New York Times reviewer is mostly positive, and lauds James Cameron, the director, producer, and writer, for showing us the beauty of an alien world. A Times op-ed columnist, however, is quite critical of what he sees as the pantheism in the movie, and in Cameron's world-view. Another reviewer is not very concerned about the pantheism in the movie, and praises it for the beauty it shows. I agree that the movie is spectacular. I also agree that it seems to present a non-Christian religion as if the Na'vi believe in it.

I'd like to raise two points about the biology of Cameron's imagined world.

First, there seem to be a lot of animals, more than you'd expect could be supported by the vegetation. In other words, the food pyramid seems to be larger on top than would be realistic. Granted, there are some very large trees, but trees generally aren't good for food, and, besides, most or all of the animals seem to be carnivorous.

Second, did Cameron actually imagine anything new in his biology? Could I, for that matter? Are our imaginations restricted to variations on what life already exists in our world? Has God created any radically different beings on other worlds? (For example, creatures that have more than two sexes, that live backwards in time, or that obtain their energy in ways that no earth organisms do.) There are some variations in Avatar, for sure, such as non-insectoid land animals with six legs, small jellyfish-like creatures that float in the air, and flying animals with four wings, plus the ability to make physical and neural connections with beings of other species.

Now, back to the pantheistic world-view. Part of this is not pantheism, or not just pantheism, but, apparently, an imagined biology. The entire biosphere seems to be connected neurally, as if it were one super-organism, a god, if you will. The trees are said to be in physical contact with each other. (There is more than one species of them.) The small jellyfish-like organisms seem to float around wherever they are needed, and serve to connect animals, and the Na'vi, to this central intelligence.

Four aspects of Cameron's imaginary neurobiology were of interest.

First, as mentioned above, the Na'vi are shown as being able to make temporary neurological connections to animals that they mount. They do this with what looks like a long pony-tail, but which, apparently -- it isn't spelled out -- is actually something like a flexible auxiliary spine coming out of the back of the head. It has small tentacles (?) at its end, and these are able to connect to the tentacles in a similar structure on the mount animals. So far as I know, there's nothing like this in earthly biology. If it really did exist, it would require some sort of conscious connection between two organisms, of different species. Is such a thing possible? I'm not sure.

I am surprised that Cameron didn't have the Na'vi connecting to each other that way, for example during sexual activity, or between parent and offspring. Perhaps he did, and I missed it.

Second, again, as mentioned above, is the implication that a giant superorganism, made up of all of the organisms on the moon, is possible.

Third is the possibility of fine control of an avatar from a remote location. It is not clear how far the avatars are from the controllers, but it must have been at least a number of miles. Is wireless communication, with little or no lag time, from a distance, possible? Would it be possible to control a body not your own? How? What signals must be broadcast, and how would they have to be received?

Last is the notion that the superorganism is somehow able to transplant the personality, or, if you please, the soul, from the paraplegic body of the hero to his avatar, so that he not just controls the avatar, but becomes the avatar. (The superorganism tried this on an aging, and injured, scientist, but the transfer didn't work.)

Quite a bit of the topics in this post remind me of a longish essay that I wrote nearly ten years ago, entitled "Soul uploading: Computers and the mind-body problem." In that essay, I mused about the speculation that it would be possible to transfer a personality, a soul, from a brain to a computer. Cameron's Avatar supposes that an extremely complex supermind would be capable of transferring a personality, a soul, from one body to another.

I fear that much of Avatar is the imaginary equivalent of the Tower of Babel -- look what we humans are capable of doing! We don't need God! I'm not expecting to see any of this in reality, and I am not sure that a lot of what was in the film could ever be possible. But, after all, it's fiction.

Thanks for reading.

Thoughts on Creation

Thoughts on God’s creation
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

“Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®, copyright ©2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.” See here. (You can search for a particular Bible passage, using the search box on the page opened by the link in the previous sentence.)



#1 God planned it.
Genesis 1 does not tell us:
When God created.
 
How God created.

Why God created.

It does tell us Where, namely "the heavens and the earth."

Most important, it tells us "Who?" God!

Creation was planned.

The most important argument about origins is not over whether the six days of Genesis 1 were consecutive 24-hour days or not. It is not about whether the Flood was responsible for geology as we know it.


The most important argument about creation is about whether it was done on purpose --with a plan --or not.
If God spoke the stars into existence in an instant, complete with their location and their direction of movement, that would be evidence of God’s power and planning.

If God brought the universe into existence, with built-in physical laws that resulted, over billions of years, in the stars, with their location and direction of movement, that also would be evidence of God’s power and planning.

God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Which of these do you think was most important in creation? According to the Bible, it is God the Son, Jesus Christ, who was.

Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,  20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

John 1 also indicates the importance of the Son in creation.

How do we know that God planned creation?

Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

No experiment has, or will, disproved God’s activity
in creation. No experiment has, or will, prove it, either.

#2 God’s creation was good, and diverse.
Genesis 1:31a And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. 

Psalm 104:24 O Lord, how manifold are your works! In wisdom have you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures. 25 Here is the sea, great and wide, which teems with creatures innumerable, living things both small and great.

Below are some examples of the diversity of God's creation. You may click on the photo itself to see a larger version, or to read a description.











#3 Humans are unique.
The description of the creation of humans in Genesis 1 uses different language, and is more detailed, than the description of the creation of anything else.

Humans were put in charge of God’s creation.

Christ came to earth as a human.

#4 Jesus Christ has not abandoned His creation.
To review a verse used previously:

Colossians 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
and also:

Hebrews 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3a He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.


#5 We need to try to take care of God’s creation
Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."


Psalm 24:1 The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein,

There are a number of other scriptural reasons for believing that we need to try to take care of God’s creation. If anyone wants to read more on this, see here and here.

God reveals Himself to us in may ways, most importantly through His Son, God Himself.


#6 God’s creation is one of the ways God reveals Himself to us.
Psalm 19:1The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. 2 Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. . . . 4a Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.

Romans 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.


If both our interpretation of the Bible, and of the findings of science, are part of God’s revelation to us, then, ideally, they shouldn’t conflict. If they conflict, we must be interpreting one or both of them wrongly. If a conflict simply can’t be resolved, then the Bible is the higher authority. But trying to resolve supposed conflicts is worth the effort, because we are learning about God, and how He works.

In recent years, scientific findings have too often been denounced in the conservative Christian community. This is a mistake.

Example 1: climate change

Why is this idea so often denounced by conservative Christians? Because Al Gore is a Democrat? Because there have been close ties between the oil industry and Republicans? I’m not sure. I have yet to read any valid arguments to reject the idea that we are affecting climate, based on scripture, and climate scientists are almost unanimous in believing that we are. (See here for more on this topic.)

Example 2: Young earth geology

The earth may be only a few thousand years old, but qualified Christian scientists, including the most important Young-Earth Creationist science organizations, are almost unanimous in believing that the scientific evidence is
strongly in favor of an earth that has been here for a long time. See here.

There are Bible-believing, God-honoring Bible scholars, who are familiar with the original language of the Old Testament, who do not believe that the Bible teaches Young-Earth Creationism. (There are others who do believe it, of course!)

If we just tell a non-Christian who is familiar with the scientific evidence that the earth is really only about 6,000 years old, their reaction may be, "OK, if that’s what their Bible teaches about geology, why should I believe what it says about sin and salvation?"

We may be misinterpreting the evidence, or there may be evidence we haven’t found, but just ignoring the evidence is a mistake.

The battle should not be so much about the when or how of creation, but about the Who.

To summarize, what does the Bible tell us about creation?

1. God planned it.
 
2. God’s creation was good, and diverse.
 
3. Humans are unique.
 
4. Jesus Christ has not abandoned His creation.
 
5. We need to try to take care of God’s creation.
 
6. Creation is one of the ways God reveals Himself to us.


Thanks for reading!


Thoughts on Creation by Martin LaBar is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

How bacteria control the behavior of animals, from Karl Zimmer

Carl Zimmer, perhaps the best science writer in English today, has posted a splendid, and deeply fascinating piece, about the bacteria in our bodies, and in the bodies of other animals. He reports on evidence suggesting that bacteria are able to influence the behavior of their hosts, at least in some ways.

Well worth reading!

Sunspots 250

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

 

Science:
Wired reports that polar bears may not be in as much danger from climate change as some have supposed.

Computing: 
A study reported in Wired says that your Facebook persona (if you have one) closely matches your real personality.

Christianity:A serious essay on the question of whether a person who believes in old-earth creationism can find a home in an evangelical church.




Image source (public domain)

Clan daughter: Queen of the orcs, book II, by Morgan Howell

I have already posted on the first book of Morgan Howell's Queen of the Orcs trilogy. The heroine, Dar, began that book as a slave. The subtitle indicates what the end will be, but I'm not there yet.

In the second book, there are some interesting developments. The King of the local humans has an evil magician, who has the current Orc queen under his control, because of the drugs he is giving her. Dar is able to defeat him, to the point that he is apparently dead, and and to rescue the queen. Dar has some visions from spirits. Near the end of the book, the queen dies, and appoints Dar as her successor, which is not appreciated by the mothers of some Orc clans who believed that they, or their daughters, had some claim to that office.

In the first book, I indicated that Howell's Orcs are quite different from those of Tolkien. They are a matriarchal society -- the females are in charge, although they don't go out to fight. They are ethical beings, and, apparently, unable to deceive, which makes them vulnerable to some battle strategies that they cannot anticipate, or makes them vulnerable in battle because they can't carry out plans that involve deceit. However, in this book, we learn that there are some Orcs that can lie. There aren't many of them, but there are some.

Also, Dar discovers that she is in love with an Orc. Their relationship is not consummated, but they do engage in some serious physical intimacy. This Orc's mother does not bless their relationship, because she thinks it cannot result in offspring.

As a negative criticism, I was surprised to find that the cover art on the version I read (New York: Del Ray, 2007) showed Dar with no facial ornamentation. In the book, she received an Orc tattoo. I suppose that the publisher thought her unadorned face would help sell the book.

It's a readable series, and the non-Tolkienish Orcs add interest. I plan to finish reading the trilogy.

Thanks for reading.

Color vision established through genetic engineering

National Public Radio reports that scientists have enabled two monkeys, from a species that does not see in full color, to perceive colors they could not perceive at birth. The "cure" was not immediate, presumably because it took a few months for appropriate neural connections to be established.

If the same techniques worked in humans, perhaps, as the authors say, a variety of eye problems, and perhaps other problems, could be treated in this way.

Here's a link to a related page from the scientists involved. Here's another one.

Unfortunately, the actual research article is not freely available.

Be grateful that you can see. Thanks for reading.

God's jealousy, in the New Testament

James 4:4 You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. 5 Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, “He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us”? 6 But he gives more grace. Therefore it says, “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” 7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. (ESV)

When verse 5 recently struck me, I guess for the first time (although I have read it several times in the past) it struck hard. The Holy Spirit (which is apparently the spirit referred to) is jealous? I checked some other versions of the Bible:

5 Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy? (KJV)

5 Or do you think Scripture says without reason that the spirit he caused to live in us envies intensely?

Text note: Or that God jealously longs for the spirit that he made to live in us; or that the Spirit he caused to live in us longs jealously (NIV)

The answer seems to be that the Spirit can be jealous, indeed.

Thanks for reading.

Warbreaker, by Brandon Sanderson

I recently read Warbreaker (New York: Tom Doherty Associates, 2009) by Brandon Sanderson. See here and here for two reviews of the book, the first by Orson Scott Card.

A previous post by me muses on the first book of a trilogy by Sanderson.

I will parallel that post, in part.

First, as in the Mistborn trilogy, Sanderson has gone to some pains to construct a new type of magic. In this book, the magic is related to color. It is also related to Breath, which is some sort of attribute that each person has. (Their soul? Their spirit? Something else? I'm not sure.) People can voluntarily give their Breath to another person, and, in the process, lose their own, after which they become drab, or colorless. On the other hand, a person with breaths from several people can impart some or all of that breath to inanimate objects, such as ropes or scarves, and then these objects will respond to commands, such as to tie someone up, or to pull the person practicing magic to a height. The breath placed in inanimate objects can be reclaimed. Orson Scott Card wrote that "it seemed as if Sanderson was flailing around trying to come up with another cool new never-before-seen magic system." That had been my impression, but there's no serious harm in doing that, and, as Card wrote on, Warbreaker is a good story.

The magic was complex, and hard to understand, even though Sanderson provides an appendix on the relationship between breaths and powers. There was more magic than that. A few dead people, the Returned, are reborn (re-created? reincarnated?) as gods -- they have special powers, and bodies that are, essentially, perfect. Some other dead people, the Lifeless, are used as soldiers, or slaves. They don't seem to have self-awareness, but can obey commands. Sanderson seems to violate the second law of thermodynamics here -- the Lifeless don't eat, but apparently may serve as slaves for years. No special energy source is mentioned.

There are also kings, queens, and royal families, and a super-Returned, the god-king. There are references to a devastating war, fought a few centuries ago, and to the leading characters in that war, who apparently had special powers, ability, and knowledge.

As I wrote about the first book of the Mistborn trilogy, "there are interesting characters in the book. These characters have feelings, and flaws, and most of them are trying to do good." One flaw I found is that several of the characters seemed to sound alike.

There's plenty of action, and some romance, in the book. It's a real page-turner. But it has its flaws.

Thirdly, and as usual, I wish to muse about religious aspects of Warbreaker, giving away as little of the plot as I can in the process. One such aspect has already been referred to -- in the country where most of the action takes place, there are a couple of dozen or so gods, or goddesses, the Returned, in the book. They are not, as Lifesong, one of the main characters, and a god, keeps insisting, immortal, and don't have omniscience, either. They can only grant one petition for healing, and, if they do so, give up their own reincarnated lives in the process. There are priests or priestesses for each of the gods. These priests carry out every wish of their gods, or goddesses. But the gods are insulated from the real world, pampered amazingly, but trapped, as it were, in part of the palace.

Lightsong is as close to a Christ-figure as Sanderson comes:

"Lightsong gave his life to heal me," the God King said. "He somehow knew that my tongue had been removed."
"The returned can heal one person," the priest said, looking down at his god. "It's their duty to decide who and when. They come back for this purpose, some say. To give life to one person who needs it." (574)

There is another god, more of a creator type, in a smaller country next to Hallandren, the main one. 

All in all, a good read. Thanks for reading this!

Folk science, an essential concept

I have been reading the Quintessence of Dust blog for some time, but, apparently, not enough. That blog is essential reading for any Christian who takes science seriously, and wants to think about origins, even if she may not agree with Stephen Matheson, the author. Matheson is careful, thorough, and respectful of viewpoints that are not his own.

The reason I said "not enough" above is that I have recently come upon a post from 2007, in which Matheson discusses what he calls "folk science," which is, more or less, science used to defend a pre-existing view. As Matheson points out in a recent post, much of the defense of Intelligent Design is actually folk science, unfortunately. The same is true of much of the defense of Young-Earth Creationism.

Thanks for reading. Read Quintessence of Dust.

Sunspots 249

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

Humor:(This isn't especially humorous, but I don't have a category for it) The New York Times reports on a woman who died recently, leaving about 2,000 living descendants. She was a holocaust survivor.

Science:
Wired reports on a comet with a tail that is millions of miles long. There is a photo, taken with an infrared camera.

Quintessence of Dust continues a careful criticism of Stephen C. Meyer's Signature in the Cell .

Computing: 
A video of a robot, said to be made entirely from Lego parts, that can solve a Rubik's cube in seconds.


Christianity:According to Jan, Jesus lives in Michigan.

It is my understanding that John Wesley wrote his last letter on this date, in 1791. He wrote to William Wilberforce, urging him to continue the fight against slavery.



Image source (public domain)

"Day" as used in the Bible

A recent post had a comment, which, in part, said this: ". . . why does the Bible say a day and science say millions of years for creation?"

I responded, but perhaps a longer response is in order. One part of the response is to agree wholeheartedly that it is dangerous to ignore the literal text of the Bible. If, for example, the Bible says that Jesus rose from the dead, we need a very good reason to say that this wasn't meant as literal, and that He, in fact, did not so rise. There is no such reason, as far as I am concerned -- Jesus did rise from the dead.

Are there reasons to believe that the six days of creation, in Genesis 1, may not have been meant to be taken literally? I think there are. Am I sure that they were meant to be taken as something other than a literal day? No, I'm not sure.

To quote the King James Version of Genesis 1: "And the evening and the morning were the first day." This language is repeated, being found in verses 5, 8, 13, 19, 23, and 31. Why "evening and morning"? I'm not sure, but would guess that the ancient Hebrews had a different view of when days started and ended than we do. Now, already there is a problem with taking these days as literal days, namely that the sun is said to have been made on the fourth day. How could there have been evening and morning on days one, two and three without the sun? I understand that God could have made evening and morning when there was no sun, but at the least, the listing of days before the sun requires something more than a literal interpretation of the word "day" in the first three instances where it occurs, in Genesis 1.

Then there's Genesis 2:4: ". . . in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens . . ." Here is a case, right after Genesis 1, where "day" doesn't seem to mean a literal 24-hour day, but rather a period of time, of at least a few 24-hour days in length. The phrase seems to be referring to the entire period of creation, based on the context. I'm not a Hebrew scholar, by any means, but if I go to the web page called up by the link for "Genesis 2" at the beginning of this paragraph, then click on the small "c" in the box to the left of verse 4, I get a display of the Hebrew words that the English translations are based on. The word used for "day" is rendered "yowm." Beside that word, there is a number, H3117, from Strong's Concordance of the original language. If I click on that number, I get an entry for that word. The first thing I note is that that same word, "yowm," was used for a number of things, including 24-hour days, years, and periods of time, just as day may be used in English. If I scroll down a bit, I see that the same word was used for each of  the six days, as listed above.

As an aside, Genesis doesn't tell us when the earth was created, nor the heavens, other than that they were "In the beginning." Were these created on the first day, or before the six days of Genesis 1?

Then, of course, there's 2 Peter 3:8, which says that a day is as a thousand years. Some people have taken that to mean that the six days of Genesis 1 were each exactly a thousand years in length, but I don't think that that is warranted.

My point is that it may be true that Genesis 1 is speaking of 24-hour days, but for it to be doing so, some assumptions must be made, or some other Biblical facts ignored. In other words, I believe that it is legitimate to believe that the days of Genesis 1 were not meant to be taken as literal days, and I am by no means alone in this.

I have posted on this question before. See here (which post considers the association of the days of Genesis with the fourth Commandment) and here (which post considers problems in interpretation of Genesis 2:5-7 literally) for more.

I thank the commenter for raising the question. I have by no means answered it fully. Thanks for reading.

The God Delusion and disproving God's existence: Dawkins argues from chance

I have been posting on The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins. In this post, which will be the last in the series, unless there are comments that need to be addressed in a full post, or unless I simply decide to post on the subject (It's my blog!) I wish to discuss Dawkins' central argument for the non-existence of God.

Dawkins discusses the Anthropic Principle. This has to do with the apparently very narrow constraints that astronomical facts, properties of matter, and physical laws place on the existence of life as we know it. For example, if the earth were a little closer to the sun, there wouldn't be enough liquid water for life. If the earth were a little further from the sun, there wouldn't be enough, either, because so much of it would be ice. But, of course, we are here! Why? One response is that there is a supernatural God who has planned things that way. Richard Dawkins will have none of that explanation, of course. I agree with him that this is an unprovable idea, and I believe that there is even scriptural proof that it is unprovable, but I believe it, nonetheless. Hebrews 11:3 says "By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." (ESV) Note that this says "by faith." Although the verse does not say that it is impossible to prove this, I think it means that. (I also believe that it is impossible to disprove it, and Dawkins, to his credit, does not make that claim. He does think that he has gotten very close, though!)

Why does Dawkins think he has gotten so close? He has done the opposite of believing in divine planning. Here's what he says, in reference to six physical constants, as discussed by astronomer Martin Rees, in his book, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe, 2000:
I won't go through the rest of Rees's six numbers. The bottom line for each of them is the same. The actual number sits in a Goldilocks band of values outside which life would not have been possible. How should we respond to this? . . . The theist says that God, when setting up the universe, tuned the fundamental constants . . . so that each one lay in its Goldilocks zone for the production of life. . . . As ever, the theist's answer is deeply unsatisfying, because it leaves the existence of God unexplained. A God capable of calculating the Goldilocks values for the six numbers would have to be at least as improbable as the finely tuned combination of numbers itself, and that's very improbable indeed . . . (p. 143)

Say what? In the first place, it is not clear, at least to me, that God would have to be as improbable as such a combination of numbers, and I'm not alone. Of course, to a theist, God isn't improbable at all. The probability of His existence is 1.0. In the second place, assuming that God's existence is extremely improbable, how does Dawkins explain our existence? He claims -- I am not making this up -- that there are a great many universes, with many combinations of properties, and we just happen to live in one with a suitable combination. To quote Dawkins:
The multiverse, for all that it is extravagant, is simple. God, or any intelligent, decision-taking, calculating agent, would have to be highly unprobable in the same statistical sense as the entities he is supposed to explain. The multiverse may seem extravagant in sheer number of universes. But if each of these universes is simple in its fundamental laws, we are still not postulating anything highly improbable. The very opposite has to be said of any kind of intelligence. (p. 147)

So, let me get this straight. The existence of a supernatural God is highly improbable, but the existence of multiple universes is not?

Multiple universes have not been scientifically proved, or disproved. Richard Dawkins is asking us to forsake belief in a supernatural creator, in favor of belief that we are living in one of an infinite number of possible universes. He also wants us to accept that the latter possibility is orders of magnitude much simpler, and more probable, than the possibility of a supernatural Creator. I'm sorry, but I'll stick with God.

Here's my previous post on Dawkins.

Thanks for reading. I made some editorial changes on June 25, 2011.

Christian's entry into heaven, by John Bunyan

{392 - paragraph number} Christian's conflict at the hour of death
Then said the other, [Hopeful] Be of good cheer, my brother, I feel the bottom, and it is good. Then said Christian, Ah! my friend, the sorrows of death hath compassed me about; I shall not see the land that flows with milk and honey; and with that a great darkness and horror fell upon Christian, so that he could not see before him. Also here he in great measure lost his senses, so that he could neither remember nor orderly talk of any of those sweet refreshments that he had met with in the way of his pilgrimage. But all the words that he spake still tended to discover that he had horror of mind, and heart fears that he should die in that river, and never obtain entrance in at the gate. Here also, as they that stood by perceived, he was much in the troublesome thoughts of the sins that he had committed, both since and before he began to be a pilgrim. It was also observed that he was troubled with apparitions of hobgoblins and evil spirits, for ever and anon he would intimate so much by words. Hopeful, therefore, here had much ado to keep his brother's head above water; yea, sometimes he would be quite gone down, and then, ere a while, he would rise up again half dead. Hopeful also would endeavour to comfort him, saying, Brother, I see the gate, and men standing by to receive us: but Christian would answer, It is you, it is you they wait for; you have been Hopeful ever since I knew you. And so have you, said he to Christian. Ah! brother! said he, surely if I was right he would now arise to help me; but for my sins he hath brought me into the snare, and hath left me. Then said Hopeful, My brother, you have quite forgot the text, where it is said of the wicked, "There are no bands in their death, but their strength is firm. They are not in trouble as other men, neither are they plagued like other men. [Ps. 73:4,5] These troubles and distresses that you go through in these waters are no sign that God hath forsaken you; but are sent to try you, whether you will call to mind that which heretofore you have received of his goodness, and live upon him in your distresses.
{393} Then I saw in my dream, that Christian was as in a muse a while. To whom also Hopeful added this word, Be of good cheer, Jesus Christ maketh thee whole; and with that Christian brake out with a loud voice, Oh, I see him again! and he tells me, "When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee, and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee." [Isa. 43:2] Then they both took courage, and the enemy was after that as still as a stone, until they were gone over. Christian therefore presently found ground to stand upon, and so it followed that the rest of the river was but shallow. Thus they got over. Now, upon the bank of the river, on the other side, they saw the two shining men again, who there waited for them; wherefore, being come out of the river, they saluted them, saying, We are ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for those that shall be heirs of salvation. Thus they went along towards the gate.
{394} Now you must note that the city stood upon a mighty hill, but the Pilgrims went up that hill with ease, because they had these two men to lead them up by the arms; also, they had left their mortal garments behind them in the river, for though they went in with them, they came out without them. They, therefore, went up here with much agility and speed, though the foundation upon which the city was framed was higher than the clouds. They therefore went up through the regions of the air, sweetly talking as they went, being comforted, because they safely got over the river, and had such glorious companions to attend them.
Now, now, look how the holy pilgrims ride, Clouds are their chariots, angels are their guide: Who would not here for him all hazards run, That thus provides for his when this world's done?
{395} The talk they had with the Shining Ones was about the glory of the place; who told them that the beauty and glory of it was inexpressible. There, said they, is the Mount Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem, the innumerable company of angels, and the spirits of just men made perfect. [Heb. 12:22-24] You are going now, said they, to the paradise of God, wherein you shall see the tree of life, and eat of the never-fading fruits thereof; and when you come there, you shall have white robes given you, and your walk and talk shall be every day with the King, even all the days of eternity. [Rev. 2:7, 3:4, 21:4,5] There you shall not see again such things as you saw when you were in the lower region upon the earth, to wit, sorrow, sickness, affliction, and death, for the former things are passed away. You are now going to Abraham, to Isaac, and Jacob, and to the prophets -- men that God hath taken away from the evil to come, and that are now resting upon their beds, each one walking in his righteousness. [Isa. 57:1,2, 65:17] The men then asked, What must we do in the holy place? To whom it was answered, You must there receive the comforts of all your toil, and have joy for all your sorrow; you must reap what you have sown, even the fruit of all your prayers, and tears, and sufferings for the King by the way. [Gal. 6:7] In that place you must wear crowns of gold, and enjoy the perpetual sight and vision of the Holy One, for there you shall see him as he is. [1 John 3:2] There also you shall serve him continually with praise, with shouting, and thanksgiving, whom you desired to serve in the world, though with much difficulty, because of the infirmity of your flesh. There your eyes shall be delighted with seeing, and your ears with hearing the pleasant voice of the Mighty One. There you shall enjoy your friends again that are gone thither before you; and there you shall with joy receive, even every one that follows into the holy place after you. There also shall you be clothed with glory and majesty, and put into an equipage fit to ride out with the King of Glory. When he shall come with sound of trumpet in the clouds, as upon the wings of the wind, you shall come with him; and when he shall sit upon the throne of judgment; you shall sit by him; yea, and when he shall pass sentence upon all the workers of iniquity, let them be angels or men, you also shall have a voice in that judgment, because they were his and your enemies. [1 Thes. 4:13-16, Jude 1:14, Dan. 7:9,10, 1 Cor. 6:2,3] Also, when he shall again return to the city, you shall go too, with sound of trumpet, and be ever with him.
{396} Now while they were thus drawing towards the gate, behold a company of the heavenly host came out to meet them; to whom it was said, by the other two Shining Ones, These are the men that have loved our Lord when they were in the world, and that have left all for his holy name; and he hath sent us to fetch them, and we have brought them thus far on their desired journey, that they may go in and look their Redeemer in the face with joy. Then the heavenly host gave a great shout, saying, "Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb." [Rev. 19:9] There came out also at this time to meet them, several of the King's trumpeters, clothed in white and shining raiment, who, with melodious noises, and loud, made even the heavens to echo with their sound. These trumpeters saluted Christian and his fellow with ten thousand welcomes from the world; and this they did with shouting, and sound of trumpet.
{397} This done, they compassed them round on every side; some went before, some behind, and some on the right hand, some on the left, (as it were to guard them through the upper regions), continually sounding as they went, with melodious noise, in notes on high: so that the very sight was, to them that could behold it, as if heaven itself was come down to meet them. Thus, therefore, they walked on together; and as they walked, ever and anon these trumpeters, even with joyful sound, would, by mixing their music with looks and gestures, still signify to Christian and his brother, how welcome they were into their company, and with what gladness they came to meet them; and now were these two men, as it were, in heaven, before they came at it, being swallowed up with the sight of angels, and with hearing of their melodious notes. Here also they had the city itself in view, and they thought they heard all the bells therein to ring, to welcome them thereto. But above all, the warm and joyful thoughts that they had about their own dwelling there, with such company, and that for ever and ever. Oh, by what tongue or pen can their glorious joy be expressed! And thus they came up to the gate.
{398} Now, when they were come up to the gate, there was written over it in letters of gold, "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." [Rev. 22:14]
{399} Then I saw in my dream that the Shining Men bid them call at the gate; the which, when they did, some looked from above over the gate, to wit, Enoch, Moses, and Elijah, &c., to whom it was said, These pilgrims are come from the City of Destruction, for the love that they bear to the King of this place; and then the Pilgrims gave in unto them each man his certificate, which they had received in the beginning; those, therefore, were carried in to the King, who, when he had read them, said, Where are the men? To whom it was answered, They are standing without the gate. The King then commanded to open the gate, "That the righteous nation," said he, "which keepeth the truth, may enter in." [Isa. 26:2]
{400} Now I saw in my dream that these two men went in at the gate: and lo, as they entered, they were transfigured, and they had raiment put on that shone like gold. There was also that met them with harps and crowns, and gave them to them -- the harps to praise withal, and the crowns in token of honour. Then I heard in my dream that all the bells in the city rang again for joy, and that it was said unto them, "ENTER YE INTO THE JOY OF YOUR LORD." I also heard the men themselves, that they sang with a loud voice, saying, "BLESSING AND HONOUR, AND GLORY, AND POWER, BE UNTO HIM THAT SITTETH UPON THE THRONE, AND UNTO THE LAMB, FOR EVER AND EVER." [Rev. 5:13]

This is taken from first part of The Pilgrim's Progress, by John Bunyan (1678 - Public Domain) One source for this text is here.

The God Delusion and disproving God's existence: The tooth fairy

I have been posting on The God Delusion, a book by Richard Dawkins.

In this book, Dawkins explicitly says that he is trying to convert people to atheism. How well did he do? It's hard to say. The book has sold millions of copies, and, presumably, most of the people who purchased it read at least some of it. Others, like me, are using library copies of the work. Perhaps some of these people have been converted to atheism. Probably many more have found their atheism strengthened.

How does Dawkins attempt to convert? His plan is straightforward. He attempts to show that the classic proofs of God's existence are inadequate. He attempts to show that the chance that there really is a God is very small. He attempts to show that religions could exist, even prosper, for purely naturalistic reasons. He attempts to show that belief in God is not just misguided, but dangerous.

I wish to muse about Dawkins' treatment of religion. Although he is opposed to belief in any God, or gods, Dawkins concentrates on Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. As I understand him, this is because he thinks that those religions are those most influential in Western thought, or at least those that people who speak English are most likely to pay attention to.

Dawkins has occasionally compared belief in a supernatural God to belief in the tooth fairy. Alister McGrath has taken Dawkins to task on this. Dawkins has even said that ignorance of theology is not a problem, because "Christian theology is a non-subject. It is empty. Vacuous. Devoid of coherence or content." (This was before the publication of The God Delusion, which book indicates that Dawkins does have at least some knowledge of Christian theology, although some critics have said that he doesn't have much such knowledge.) It could be that Dawkins is correct, and that there is neither a God nor a tooth fairy. But belief in a God is often not the same as belief in the tooth fairy. Unfortunately, some people will fight to the death, or commit cold-blooded murder, based on what they say is a belief in God. No one murders because she believes in the tooth fairy. It is also true that there have been many cases, some prominent, most not so much, of people coming to belief in a God as adults. I've never heard of an adult who came to believe in the tooth fairy.

Dawkins discusses a number of attempted proofs of God's existence. One that he leaves out is fulfilled prophecy. I would suppose that Dawkins thinks that there is no such thing, and he may be right, but Jews and Christians believe that the Bible sets forth a number of such prophecies, made by a person speaking for God, which came true. Two such examples are prophecies that the descendants of Abraham would inherit the land of Canaan, and that they would live in Egypt for over 400 years, but return to Canaan, and control it. There are many more such prophecies, including some which have yet to be fulfilled.

Dawkins discusses a comment by C. S. Lewis, who said:
A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg--or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that option open to us. He did not intend to. C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity: What One Must Believe to Be a Christian. New York: Macmillan, 1952. pp. 56-57. I doubt if Dawkins ever read this himself, but if he did, he missed the point. Dawkins writes:
A common argument, attributed among others to C. S. Lewis (who should have known better), states that, since Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, he must have been either right or insane or a liar: 'Mad, Bad or God.' . . . A fourth possibility, almost too obvious to need mentioning, is that Jesus was honestly mistaken. (p. 92).
Dawkins is correct that this is a possibility. But if Jesus had been mistaken about this, then He wouldn't be worth being called, and followed, as Lord, any more than  He would have been worth that submission if He had been a raving lunatic.

In a previous post, I described how an atheist scientist criticized some of Dawkins' attempt to explain the existence of religions, assuming that supernatural beings do not exist.

A review of the The God Delusion in the New York Times includes the following statement: "Despite the many flashes of brilliance in this book, Dawkins’s failure to appreciate just how hard philosophical questions about religion can be makes reading it an intellectually frustrating experience."

A review of The God Delusion in the London Review of Books is scathing: "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology."

The God Delusion is an important book, but it has some serious weaknesses in its treatment of Christianity.

Thanks for reading.

The God Delusion and disproving God's existence: Two published criticisms of Dawkins

I have been posting on The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins. In this post, I shall briefly consider two published criticisms of the book, which, it seems to me, are from sources that must be taken seriously.

The first is by Antony Flew. Flew, as Dawkins put it, ". . . announced in his old age that he had been converted to belief in some sort of deity . . ." (p. 82). The conversion was from atheism. Dawkins not only implied that Flew had become senile (why else mention his age?) but criticized him for accepting an award related to Intelligent Design. (See here for my own problems with the Intelligent Design movement.)

Flew responded. His strongest criticism is this: "But an academic attacking some ideological position that he believes to be mistaken must, of course, attack that position in its strongest form." Flew says that Dawkins has not done this, in particular in respect to the beliefs of Einstein. Indeed, comparing the use of quotations from Einstein (see the index in The God Delusion, which index is excellent) with those in the Wikipedia article on "Albert Einstein's religious views" is interesting. Dawkins claims that Einstein's statements that seem to indicate that he was a deist ". . . are pantheistic, not deistic . . .." (p. 18.) The Wikipedia article on Einstein's religious views quotes Einstein as explicitly saying that he was neither a pantheist nor an atheist. For some reason, they do not give documentation for that quotation, but this may be at least a secondary source. I have previously posted, discussing Dawkins' tendency to find that prominent individuals were atheists, when the persons he found such denied it. Flew's criticism seems well-founded, in the case of Einstein, at least.

The New York Times publishes reviews of important books. They published a review of The God Delusion, by Jim Holt, who was presumably a well-qualified reviewer. In his review, he criticizes Dawkins in a number of ways. Holt, according to the note at the end of the review, was working on a book on the existence of God. He said that "The least satisfying part of this book is Dawkins’s treatment of the traditional arguments for the existence of God." Holt has other important criticisms of The God Delusion, and I will deal with some of them in further posts, God willing. (One of the criticisms has already been considered, in this post.)

Thanks for reading.

The Pilgrim's Progress: publication anniversary

John Bunyan wrote The Pilgrim's Progress a long time ago, related to the lifespan of most published books. It was first published on this date in 1678. As the book is in the public domain, the text is available on-line, at least here and here.

When I was growing up, I was told, more than once, that the book, which presents the Christian life in story, or allegoric form, had been read more than any book except the Bible. I don't know if that is true or not, but the archaic English in the book can make it difficult to follow for 21st century readers, I'm afraid. But it's still very much worth reading.

Thanks for reading. Read Bunyan.

Sunspots 248

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

Humor:(or maybe Sports) NPR reports that the inventor of the Frisbee has died. He was 90 years old. Thanks to him!

Literature:
Christianity Today has released its annual list of the Top Ten Most Redeeming Films of 2009. I actually saw three of them, and hope to rent a couple more, or get them from the library.

Christianity:In Answers in Genesis Research Journal, an article on how important textbooks in Systematic Theology treat the Age of the Earth. Warning: the article is 25 pages long. As I am not an expert in Systematic Theology, I have not read it all. I was interested in the introduction, which sets forth the reasons for Young-Earth Creationism. Some or all of the reasons can be refuted, but they are well set out. The author believes that Systematic Theology textbooks are misleading future ministers, by not supporting Young-Earth Creationism.


Image source (public domain)

The God Delusion and disproving God's existence: memes and group selection

I have been posting on The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins. In this post, I discussed Dawkins' explicit atheist bias.

I now wish to muse about a concept Dawkins uses, namely the concept of a meme, a concept which Dawkins originated, or at least brought to prominence, in his The Selfish Gene. Dawkins says that religion is largely useless, or worse, but acknowledges that the fact that most people subscribe to some sort of religion. If religion gives people a disadvantage, why hasn't natural selection operated against people who have one? Dawkins has an explanation. He says that religion is a meme.

So what is a meme? Well, according to Dawkins, a meme is a unit of culture -- a song, or a way of clothing oneself -- that can be replicated and passed along from person to person. It seems pretty clear that some songs, and some ways of clothing ourselves, can, indeed, be passed along to others, even though they aren't our descendants. Often this is done quite rapidly. Dawkins believes that various religious ideas are memes. He cites some examples: believing in a life after death; being specially blessed if you die a martyr's death for your religion; non-believers should be punished, even killed; belief in a supreme being; and others. (pp. 199-200).

Religious ideas, at least some of them, seem to run counter to what would be expected if natural selection operates as most scientists think it does. For example, being celibate, like Catholic priests are supposed to, or many female Protestant missionaries have done, would seem to work strongly against passing your genes on to the next generation. There is a branch of biology that concerns itself with apparent altruistic behavior. There are several possible explanations for it, all compatible with natural selection, which explain, in one way or another, how sacrificing oneself may really help the sacrificer's genes to be passed on. For example, going to war, and risking death, may make it more likely that your siblings, or other relatives, will survive to pass on genes that they share with you. It is difficult to see how becoming a celibate Protestant missionary helps that person's kin be more successful in passing on genes that they share with her, however.

Dawkins method of dealing with religious behavior that doesn't seem to give an advantage is to explain it as a meme -- something passed on by cultural replication, which can, he believes, be independent of natural selection for genes.

David Sloan Wilson is an evolutionary biologist, an expert on group selection. (There doesn't seem to be an article on him in the Wikipedia, but several of the references cited in the meme article in the link above were authored, or co-authored, by Wilson.) He is an atheist, and, therefore, agrees with Dawkins in many things. But he has two problems with Dawkins, as I read him.

The first problem is that Dawkins is not consistent with how he deals with group selection. How does group selection relate to the topic at hand? The Wikipedia article on the subject gives the example of viruses in a rabbit. If there is a group of viruses infecting rabbit A, and a different group infecting rabbit B, and the first group is genetically programmed to be virulent, and kill the rabbit quickly, then few or none of them will get the chance to pass themselves on to other rabbits. The entire group will be selected against, with respect to group B. It is possible that religious ideas are selected for in that way. A group that consistently works together to defend itself would probably be selected for more strongly than a group that doesn't cooperate. A group that is honest with each other might be less prone to stress and injury than one that deceives.

Says Wilson: One of the sleights of hand performed by Dawkins in The God Delusion, which takes a practiced eye to detect, is to first dismiss group selection and then to respectfully cite the work of Richerson and Boyd—without mentioning that their theory of cultural evolution is all about group selection. - Wilson, "Beyond Demonic Memes: Why Dawkins is Wrong About Religion," eSkeptic, July-Dec 2007.

Wilson's second problem is that he has studied religious behavior, and finds that much of it is of considerable practical value.That means that it should be selected for. People practicing, for example, refraining from smoking, for religious reasons, should be more likely to leave offspring than people who smoke.

So, Wilson, an important atheist scientist, has problems with Dawkins' science, and his characterization of religion.

Thanks for reading.