Sunspots 873

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

Christianity: Relevant argues that protecting the environment should be basic to Christian theology and behavior. For a more thorough discussion of this topic, see my post, here:

Joel Edmund Anderson on what a true Christian world-view is.

Education: Grammarphobia answers the question "who invented the question mark?"

Environment: The Supreme Court has come closer to shutting down the Dakota Access Pipeline, according to Gizmodo.

Politics: FiveThirtyEight discusses right-wing responses to the attack on Ukraine. Some right-wingers support Russia, some do not.

Grammarphobia discusses the name change from Kiev to Kyiv.

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

*I try not to include items that require a password or fee to view.

Thanks for reading.

Why the Bible is God's word.

The Bible is God’s word

Why do I say that? Here are some reasons:

The Bible is accurate. No one has ever shown that a location, an event, or a person mentioned in the Bible, that God intended to be taken as factual, is portrayed falsely. People have tried to disprove its accuracy, but have failed.

The Bible includes predictions that came true, about the coming of Christ, and his death, and other events. If these had been faked (written after the facts) they would almost certainly have been clearer.

The Bible doesn’t gloss over some stuff that we might not like, or that don’t seem appropriate (Like Judges 11, or parts of Psalm 35 or 54).

The Bible speaks to different cultures. Parts of the Old Testament spoke to people living about 3,000 years ago. The New Testament speaks to people living nearly 2,000 years after it was written.

People have had their lives transformed through reading the Bible. The Gideons tell us stories of that every time they come to our church. I knew a man who became a believer through reading a Gideon Bible. He recently passed away, after having been a good pastor for many years.

The Bible can stir emotions. Reading about Christ’s suffering, or the majesty of God’s creation, or the unnamed heroes of faith in the last part of Hebrews 11, brings about feelings in me. Other passages speak to other people.

The Bible points out man’s biggest problem, sin. (See the story of the Fall, Cain and Abel, and much more.) The Bible also points out the solution: Romans 3:23 for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God; 24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God sent to be an atoning sacrifice, [text note – or propitiation] through faith in his blood ...

The Bible presents a sensible worldview: There’s a supernatural beginning to the universe, humanity messing up our world, the futility of trying to pay the penalty of sin by human action, successful payment of the price of sin by an unimaginable sacrifice, a valid promise of purpose and joy in life, accompanied by God the Holy Spirit, and a to-be-filled promise of eternal life to come.

The Bible gives us two great commandments, a sturdy foundation for any ethical or legal system.

All this is evidence that the Bible is supernatural – God’s word. To further emphasize that, the Bible depends on itself. Here’s the result of a search for the phrase “it is written” in the Bible. It occurs 80 times.

For related reading, from an articulate Bible scholar, see this article.
For my own thoughts on the claim that the King James Bible is the only valid translation, see here.
For my thoughts on whether it is possible to just read the Bible, without interpreting it, see here.
In the paragraph about predictions, I indicated that at least some prophecy was not very clear -- it was difficult or impossible to know what was meant, until after the event prophesied. See here for biblical examples.

The Fault in Our Stars

This post is on the book, The Fault in Our Stars, by John Green. I have not seen the movie, based on that book, which is currently playing in theaters.

For the plot of the book, and more, use the first link, above, which is to the Wikipedia article on the book.

I don't wish to give away the plot, so I won't have much to say about the book.

First, it was well written. I'm not surprised that it has been a best-seller. It is aimed at the teen market. For one thing, the book is entirely as experienced by the protagonist, a 16-year-old, Hazel Grace. Some other characters, including the second most important character, are also teenagers. However, I liked it, and see no reason why adults would not appreciate the book, and, apparently, many of them have. There are references to Shakespeare and other important authors, and the dialog, which is splendid -- although it would have taken extraordinary teenagers, or, for that matter, college professors, to produce, in real life -- considers many important subjects.

Second, the book is about cancer, or having cancer. The three main teen characters all have cancer. Cancer affects living deeply -- that's one aspect, in Fault, of having it. But it doesn't make you subhuman. (The author says that he was influenced by being a chaplain in a children's hospital.) Hazel and her friend Augustus, aka Gus, come to the realization that the great paintings, such as those in art museums in The Netherlands, may be about various subjects, including, sometimes, death, but they are never about being cancer-ridden.

Third, and last, the book does not have a Christian worldview:

"All salvation is temporary," Augustus shot back. (page 59)

"Yes," he said, his voice full of confidence. "Yes, absolutely. Not like a heaven where you ride unicorns, play harps, and live in a mansion full of clouds. But yes. I believe in Something with a capital S. Always have."
"Really?" I asked. I was surprised. I'd always associated belief in heaven with, frankly, a kind of intellectual disengagement. But Gus wasn't dumb. (page 168) Gus's idea of what heaven is not like doesn't have much to do with what the Bible says about the resurrected life -- as far as I know, the Bible doesn't mention unicorns, playing harps, or living in mansions, full of clouds or not, although these are common beliefs. He is right to dismiss such ideas. But he (nor Hazel) have no grasp of personal salvation, don't pray to God, don't go to church.

Does the non-Christian worldview mean that one shouldn't read the book? No. It's a good book, but I wanted to give a heads up about that matter, which may be critical for some potential readers. Thanks for reading this.

The moral universe of Game of Thrones, as seen by Elizabeth Moon and Christianity Today.

George R. R. Martin is perhaps the best-selling author of fantastic literature of the last 25 years. His most popular work is a series, still incomplete, entitled “A Song of Ice and Fire.” That series is the basis for the popular HBO TV series, “Game of Thrones.” Martin has won several awards for his writing.

I try to deal with important works of fantastic literature in this blog, although I haven’t tried to touch on  vampire literature. Some years ago, I decided not to cover Martin’s work. My reason was that it didn’t affirm anything. Although there were sympathetic characters, their fate was often terrible, and there were some extremely evil characters, who seemed to be unpunished. (I’m sure that the series hasn’t suffered because I’m not following it!)

Two recent articles, not by me, bear on this matter.

The first is an excellent blog post by Elizabeth Moon, who has won awards in fantastic literature herself. Although it doesn’t directly consider Martin's creation, what triggered Moon’s post was a review of Martin’s work. Moon points out that there is a difference between moral complexity and moral ambiguity, and that although, say, Tolkien’s characters experienced moral complexity, what should have been done was clear. (See here for a discussion of Galadriel, for example.) But, says Moon, we are coming to the point where there's a lot of moral ambiguity:

“Moral ambiguity requires that there be no general good and bad–a chaotic, or amoral, universe–a universe in which the concepts of good and evil are absent, immaterial, and have no effect on characters’ motivation.”

As indicated above, I haven’t read all of Martin’s series, but Moon has succinctly put my unease about the series into words.

A recent article in Christianity Today points out the same thing I saw in my earlier post -- nothing is affirmed. (I claim no great wisdom here. It’s easy to get Martin’s world view, or at least that part of it.)

As the article puts it: “For Martin, realistic means his characters are complex, ‘gray,’ and morally ambiguous. There are no heroes in Martin’s books like there are in The Lord of the Rings. There is no echo of Calvin's description of human beings as ‘glorious ruins’ — broken, but still able to bear the Image of God. Martin's image focuses on the ruin, not the glory.”

Thanks for reading. Don’t read George R. R. Martin, or watch the series. Or, if you do, do so carefully.

Bertrand Russell's world-view

Such, in outline, but even more purposeless, more void of meaning, is the world which Science presents for our belief. Amid such a world, if anywhere, our ideals henceforward must find a home. That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar . . . system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the débris of a universe in ruins—all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built. (Bertrand Russell, "A Free Man's Worship," in Mysticism and Logic and Other Essays, 1918. Public domain, Project Gutenberg edition.)

In other words, there is no real purpose to the universe and no after-life. A clear declaration of atheism, by an atheist.

The Bible uses the science of the time: Job 37:18

Job 37:18 Can you, with him, spread out the sky,
which is strong as a cast metal mirror? (World English Bible)

18 Can you, like him, spread out the skies,
hard as a cast metal mirror? (English Standard Version)

18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass? (KJV)

18 With Him, have you spread out the skies, Strong as a cast metal mirror? (NKJV)

18 he makes the skies reflect the heat like a bronze mirror. Can you do that? (NLT)

All the versions I checked use similar language. (See here for several of them, from the Blueletter Bible.) What's going on here? Is the Bible in error? No, but there's a lesson here. For one thing, this illustrates that the Bible can't always be taken literally. Much of Job is poetic in nature, and, besides, note the "as" or "like" in some of these renditions -- the sky is somehow like a looking glass, not literally a looking glass, in the mind of the speaker and the listeners. (This was Elihu speaking to Job, and, apparently, Job's three friends were listening.)

And that's the main point I'm trying to make. God, who knows exactly what the sky is like, allowed, and, presumably, directed, that the ideas of the time of writing were used in Job. To describe the sky in the terms we use today would have made this incomprehensible to Elihu's contemporaries, and to people for several centuries after he spoke this. I believe that the same applies to several other biblical passages -- the Bible used the world-view of the people of the time in describing nature.

Thanks for reading!

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.

Ravi Zacharias on Past, Present and Future

Some time ago, I read Can Man Live Without God, by Ravi Zacharias. (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1994) Zacharias is a Christian apologist, who knows philosophy, and knows non-Christian religions, at least some of them. (He was born in India. This is the biography page from the ministry that he heads.) Here's what he said about time in this book:

According to Christ's teaching, history is not just one event after another. Not only the present moment, nor only the past, nor only the future,but all of time is important to God. That is why the genuine Christian does not take it upon himself or herself to avenge the past. That is why the genuine Christian does not make this earthly kingdom into God's kingdom by way of the sword. That is why the genuine Christian transcends present disaster or immediate success. For him or for her, history is the arena in which God unfolds His plan and the individual is the microcosm in whom God does His work. I suggest that if you contrast this with every other world-view, you will see the striking difference in Christianity. What reassurance this brings to every individual life -- yours and mine -- to know that God is involved with us personally! The ultimate coherence that God brings is not only in the history that we see within our three-score and ten years, but for life beyond the grave itself. (p. 166)

Thanks for reading.

Christopher Paolini, author of Eragon, is an agnostic

In a previous post, I considered the moral fabric of the young adult fantastic novel, Eragon, by Christopher Paolini. (I also provided a couple of links to documents about the concept of a world view, or worldview.) The movie version of this book comes out this month. In this post, I consider Paolini's moral fabric, or at least that of his characters, as shown in the sequel, Eldest: Inheritance, Book Two. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005) The bottom line is that Paolini appears to be an agnostic, and/or a naturalist. Here's a key passage:

"Master, it struck me last night that either you nor the hundreds of elven scrolls I've read have mentioned your religion. What do elves believe?"
A long sigh was Oromis's first answer. Then: "We believe that the world behaves according to certain inviolable rules and that, by persistent effort, we can discover those rules and use them to predict events when circumstances repeat."
Eragon blinked. That did not tell him what he wanted to know. "But who, or what, do you worship?"
"Nothing."
"You worship the concept of nothing?"
"No, Eragon. We do not worship at all."
The thought was so alien, it took Eragon several moments to grasp what Oromis meant. The villagers of Carvahall lacked a single overriding doctrine, but they did share a collection of superstitions and rituals, most of which concerned warding off bad luck. During the course of his training, it had dawned upon Eragon that many of the phenomena that the villagers attributed to supernatural sources were in fact natural processes, such as when he learned in his meditations that maggots hatched from fly eggs instead of spontaneously arising from the dirt, as he had thought before. (p. 540-541)

Oromis is Eragon's teacher, a wise elf. Eragon discovers that, not only do the elves not worship, but that his own people are apparently confused or misled about their own beliefs. (As indicated in the previous post, dwarves do have a religion, although outsiders can see problems with it.) I am not certain that Oromis is speaking for Paolini, but he seems to be.

Oromis continues ". . . I cannot prove that gods do not exist. Nor can I prove that the world and everything in it was not created by an entity or entities in the distant past. But I can tell you that in the millennia we elves have studied nature, we have never witnessed an instance where the rules that govern the world have been broken. That is, we have never seen a miracle. Many events have defied our ability to explain, but we are convinced that we failed [new page] because we are still woefully ignorant about the universe and not because a deity altered the workings of nature." (p. 542-3) This seems a classic agnostic statement.

Eragon's dragon tells him that dragons don't believe in any gods, either, and claims that believing in such makes you vulnerable, because it means you are deceived. (p. 544)

There is a definite sense of right and wrong in the books. Oromis says ". . . power without moral direction is the most dangerous force in the world. . . ." p. 273.

When Eragon suggests that the Urgals, another race of beings, don't deserve any moral consideration, Oromis tells him, in no uncertain terms, that they do. (p. 375)

Eragon, himself, is shocked when Oromis allows him to unwittingly kill ants, a baby mouse, and some small plants, in a demonstration of what happens when you carelessly take magical energy from other living things. Oromis tells Eragon that the demonstration was necessary, so that Eragon would not do anything like that again, except at great need. (p. 540)

Where does this sense of right and wrong come from? Where do the "rules that govern the world" come from? Paolini doesn't say. His world view, and/or that of his elves, doesn't seem to be well developed.

Does this apparent agnostic world view mean that Christians, or others who are not agnostic, should not see the movie, or read the books? I wouldn't say so. (For a link to a more extensive discussion of this sort of question, see this post.) There are probably redeeming features in the film. I certainly hope so. I expect to see loyalty, heroism, and unselfishness portrayed as good qualities. I hope that the artistry is good. I hope that it measures up reasonably well against Philippians 4:8: Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. (ESV)

Thanks for reading.

Christopher Paolini's moral fabric: Eragon

Christopher Paolini recently turned 23 years of age. He is the author of Eragon and Eldest, two big, and pretty good, books of fantasy. Eragon: Inheritance, Book One (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003) will soon be released as a movie.

I wouldn't say that Paolini has written ground-breaking fantasy, but few people have -- it's well-crafted, and a good read. In a lot of ways, he reads like a cross between J. R. R. Tolkien and Ursula K. Le Guin -- the elves are human-like, but immortal, and mostly hidden from humans, and have their own language, an old, magical language; there are dwarves, living underground, and unfriendly to other races; magic has rules, and must be taught; great care must be exercised in performing magic. There are some original elements -- dragons can't speak aloud, for example, and there are at least two intelligent species that are unique to Paolini's books. Religion, and worship, are described. Tolkien didn't do that.

I don't have any idea how the plot of the movie corresponds with that of the book, and, even if I did, I wouldn't give away any details. I prefer to consider the moral fabric of Paolini's books.

Every author has a world view. Here's an apparently secular take on what a world view is. Here's a definitely Christian take on the same topic (using worldview, not world view). The two are similar. They both say that a world view answers such questions as where the universe came from, what (if anything) is the difference between right and wrong, and what happens to humans when they die. It is also true that many people don't have a consistent world view -- they haven't carefully worked out answers to these questions. I don't know what Paolini's world view is, but I have gotten some hints from reading his books. This post presents some of what I learned about Paolini from Eragon. It is also true, of course, that an author's characters may have a different world view than the author, herself. Eragon is fiction, after all.

There is a definite sense of right and wrong. The Empire is evil, and Eragon's step-father is good.

Some of the characters question how bad things can be allowed to happen and challenge whatever gods may exist, because they have happened. (p. 91, 131)

". . . This magic -- for it is magic -- has rules like the rest of the world. If you break the rules, the penalty is death, without exception. Your deeds are limited by your strength, the words you know, and your imagination." (p. 139) Brom, Eragon's first teacher, also makes clear, and Eragon experiences at various points, that magic is not practiced without a cost -- at least some temporary tiredness, at most, death. It takes one's strength to use magic.

There are evil spirits in the world, that can possess humans, using them for their own ends. (p. 144, 437)

". . . Keep in mind that many people have died for their beliefs; it's actually quite common. The real courage is in living and suffering for what you believe." (p. 197) Brom speaking.

At least some religions are evil. On p. 247-8, one such, requiring human sacrifice, and spending too many resources on trivial matters, is described.

In the chapter "A Clash of Wills" (pp. 347 - 353) Eragon is very upset at Murtagh, who decapitates a slaver during a battle, while he is lying on the ground, seriously injured. Eragon thinks that the man should have had a chance, even though slavery is monstrous.

Eldest is more explicit on what I take to be Paolini's world view. I posted on that book here.

Thanks for reading!