Seven Sevens

Bonnie has mentioned my name as a person she'd like to have post on seven sevens. She didn't tag me. I'm responding, more or less, anyway.


Seven things to do before I die:
1. know that my relatives all are believers
2. see my children and their husbands happy with their work, etc.
3. believe that my local church is in a position to grow, not spectacularly necessarily, but healthily, spiritually, financially, and numerically
4. see alligators and moose again, a cougar (from a car) for the first time, and a mountain goat/sheep, all in the wild
5. attend a performance of most of Elijah or Messiah
6. learn how to edit videos taken with our video camera
7. believe that the government (all branches) is willing to honestly and seriously address (not necessarily solve) the problems of health care, poverty, ignorance, peace, the environment, justice, immigration and racism as a priority higher than getting re-elected



Seven things I cannot do:
1. Play in the NBA
2. cook like my wife or sons-in-law or daughters
3. understand most of what our 13-month-old grandson is saying
4. love other people as I should
5. get evangelicals to understand that the Bible does not make a rock-solid case that the world is only thousands of years old, and that claiming too strongly that it is makes Christianity look foolish in the eyes of some, to say nothing of denying some of what God reveals to us in nature
6. really sing well
7. organize my time as well as I should



Seven good things about my wife:
1. She is deeply compassionate
2. She tries hard to understand things that she doesn't
3. She loves me, our grandson, her daughters and sons-in-laws, our brothers, their wives and their kids and . . . you get the idea
4. She is a strong believer
5. She is willing to put up with, and occasionally enjoy, classical music
6. She helped me lose about 30 pounds, and keep it off
7. She is a wonderful companion on trips



Books or series important to me:
1. The Bible
2. Watership Down
3. Mere Christianity
4. Tolkien's Ring trilogy plus the Silmarillion
5. Le Guin's Earthsea books and short stories
6. If I ever teach again, the text for the course
7. Other works by George Macdonald, C. S. Lewis, Patricia McKillip, A. A. Milne, and many others.



Movies I like:
1. Hoosiers
2. To Kill a Mockingbird
3. The Mission
4. the recent Pride and Prejudice
5. Fried Green Tomatoes
6. Ever After
7. Anything that makes my wife happy to watch


Things I say most often:
1. "It's OK."
2. "Don't worry about it."
3. In response to how I am: "Better than I deserve."
4. "He/she/it/they can't help it."
5. "I/we can do it."
6, and 7. No doubt there are aggravating things I say that others would fill in here for me.


Seven people I'd like to join in on this, but I'm not going to ask them:
1. Drew
2. Jason
3. Laura
4. Brandy
5. Anyone else from my family, my church, or SWU
6. Katherine Fodor
7. some of my Flickr contacts


Thanks for reading!

In the Forests of Serre by Patricia McKillip

Patricia A. McKillip is one of my favorite fantasy authors. I have written elsewhere about one reason that I like her work, namely that much of it involves a main character deciding not to seek revenge. (I suppose that makes her novels, with this aspect important, Christian, in a sense.)

Here's what another blogger wrote about her use of words:

Words seem ironically inadequate to describe the skill with which McKillip spins the English language into magic. Lyrical is one word that is often used in reviews, but it's so much more. Most of McKillip's work deals with magic, and if there is any true magic in the world, I would suspect it would be found in her use of language. I could luxuriate in work written by McKillip regardless of the story, simply to enjoyher use of words.

I agree. It is also true that McKillip can be obscure, and leave quite a bit unexplained. Nonetheless, she has won more Mythopoeic Awards than any other author.

In the Forests of Serre (New York: Ace, 2003) is a book that I have read three times since I got it from one of our daughters for Christmas. I was trying to get a handle on the book. I believe that I finally did, and it's not McKillip's fault that it took me so long. It's about the heart. The word, referring to the seat of the emotions, is used over and over again, and two of the main characters give up their hearts for something else, and regret this.

I don't see how I can summarize the plot, or even describe the characters (there are nine that I would consider main characters) in anything like a post length that's reasonable, even for me. So I'll just summarize the book this way:

McKillip has again written a book with excellent use of language, describing a marvelous forest, wizardry, and a cold castle. The Princess Sidonie decides that she doesn't want to marry Prince Ronan unless he re-claims his heart. He gave it away because his first wife and child died. After numerous trips, by several characters, into and through the forest, all is well. Everyone who should have a heart does, and the two really can fall in love and be married.

* * * * *

This post has been somewhat re-done, here.

Thanks for reading!

The Christian's Secret of a Happy Life, pt. 11

I continue a series of excerpts from The Christian's Secret of a Happy Life by Hannah Whitall Smith. The book, which is public domain, is available on-line in its entirety here. This version is somewhat different from the paperback I have in my physical possession. (New York: Ballentine Books, 1986) For an article on Smith, in Christian History, go here. This Chapter is entitled "Is God in Everything?" The material below is quoted exactly, from the text at the first link in this post. However, where there are blank lines between paragraphs, I have omitted material.

The question here confronts us at once, "But is God in everything, and have we any warrant from the Scripture for receiving everything from His hands, without regarding the second causes which may have been instrumental in bringing it about?" I answer to this, unhesitatingly, Yes. To the children of God everything comes directly from their Father's hand, no matter who or what may have been the apparent agents. There are no "second causes" for them.
The whole teaching of the Bible asserts and implies this. "Not a sparrow falls to the ground without our Father." The very hairs of our head are all numbered. We are not to be careful about anything, because our Father cares for us. We are not to avenge ourselves, because our Father has charged Himself with our defence. We are not to fear, for the Lord is on our side. No one can be against us, because He is for us. We shall not want, for He is our Shepherd. When we pass through the rivers they shall not overflow us, and when we walk through the fire we shall not be burned, because He will be with us. He shuts the mouths of lions, that they cannot hurt us.

Nothing else but this seeing God in everything will make us loving and patient with those who annoy and trouble us. They will be to us then only the instruments for accomplishing His tender and wise purposes towards us, and we shall even find ourselves at last inwardly thanking them for the blessings they bring us.
Nothing else will completely put an end to all murmuring or rebelling thoughts. Christians often feel a liberty to murmur against man, when they would not dare to murmur against God. But this way of receiving things would make it impossible ever to murmur. If our Father permits a trial to come, it must be because that trial is the sweetest and best thing that could happen to us, and we must accept it with thanks from His dear hand. The trial itself may be hard to flesh and blood, and I do not mean that we can like or enjoy the suffering of it. But we can and must love the will of God in the trial, for His will is always sweet, whether it be in joy or in sorrow.

Mad-Eye Moody

Anyone looking for Thanksgiving material, please see my previous post, which should be right under this one.

* * * * *

I recently saw Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Here are some musings on this movie:
The movie was well-done. My wife, who has not read the books, except the first, enjoyed it.

It's long, two and a half hours. I wonder how whoever does it is going to manage the next two books as single movies.

I don't have my copy of the book with me, but was surprised to not see the Dursleys at all. Perhaps they aren't in the book.

I have the same problem with the movie that I did with the book it is based on. That problem is this. I have a hard time swallowing that Mad-Eye Moody was impersonated for an entire school year, and by a person who presumably didn't have his knowledge or maturity. Looking like him, OK, but basically being him, and teaching his class, I can't see, especially when surrounded by Dumbledore and others who would have known the real Moody. I know, it's all magic, but even so, my disbelief just wouldn't suspend quite that far.

Thanks for reading.

Thanksgiving!

Psalm 100:1 Make a joyful noise to the Lord, all the earth!

2 Serve the Lord with gladness! Come into his presence with singing!

3 Know that the Lord, he is God! It is he who made us, and we are his; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.

4 Enter his gates with thanksgiving, and his courts with praise! Give thanks to him; bless his name!

5 For the Lord is good; his steadfast love endures forever, and his faithfulness to all generations. (ESV)

Doxology, by Thomas Ken, 1674

Praise God, from Whom all blessings flow;
Praise Him, all creatures here below;
Praise Him above, ye heavenly host;
Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Sunspots 32

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

Christianity Today editorial, praising the Harry Potter books for their Christian themes, and Christianity Today review of the fourth HP movie.

And, while we're on Christianity Today, this is superfluous, because you all read it already, right? Just in case you don't, there's an article on possible lapses in ethics, maybe even deaths of egg donors, by the Korean embryo transfer team, and another on the meaning of the "submit" passage in Ephesians. Of the four items I have cited, I would say that the last one is most important.

Wired reports on efforts to develop plants to grow on Mars. New Scientist reports that a lichen was able to survive exposure to space for two weeks.

Rebecca reminds us of what the Westminster Larger Catechism says in answer to "What is the Word of God?" The answer is, basically, all scripture, and, like the Apostles' Creed, should be read and/or said every now and then.

The Kaiser Family Foundation has released their biannual report on Sex on TV.

I have discovered that, although I am relying on it more and more, Google Desktop isn't perfect. I recalled a file, using my own gray matter, that Google Desktop couldn't find. Windows Search did.

Rebecca has been posting on thankfulness all month. I should have. She has included things that others are thankful for.

If you are interested in the Korean stem cell egg-obtainment controversy, you should read the parts of the current issue of The American Journal of Bioethics that are available without subscription (including an article by Kyu Won Jung and Insoo Hyun on consent procedures used, and a commentary on that article) and this post from the same source. There is also a post that states that the lead researcher, Woo-Suk Hwang, was deliberately not informed that some egg donors were paid.

Page entitled "What is the Difference Between a Sweet Potato and a Yam," and giving the differences.

From the History Channel, an exhibit on the history of toys and games. (Thanks to the Librarians' Internet Index for this and the previous entry)

This week's Christian Carnival is here.

Image source (public domain)

Jubilee Economics

One of my daughters suggested, a few years ago, that I should read The Biblical Jubilee and the Struggle for Life, by Ross Kinsler and Gloria Kinsler (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1999). (Ross Kinsler is the author of an article proposing ideas similar to those in the book) While I was still an active university professor, I ordered the book for the university library, but had not read it yet. Now I have.

Christians often seem to take property rights and supposed laissez-faire economics as if they were as important as the gospel, or as if they were rooted in the gospel. This is not the place for a dissertation on economics, nor am I an economist, but Christians should at least consider other ideas. This book by the Kinslers is a good place to start. Their chapter 7 questions free-market economics explicitly. (Others, here and here -- see Mr. Friedman's comments, near the end) have also recently questioned it, for non-theological reasons.)

The authors start right out by questioning a common interpretation of a fundamental bible passage:
In our Western culture this [fourth] commandment took on a primarily religious significance. The assumption was that no work should be done on the Sabbath Day so that people could go to church, meditate on God, and engage in religious or spiritually uplifting exercises. On rereading the text, it becomes evident that this commandment is really concerned about rest and the de-absolutization of work--that is, with breaking the cycle of work on a regular, weekly basis so that people and animals, including slaves and aliens, might rest. This is therefore a concern for the health and well-being of the entire household, which might otherwise be exploited to the point of exhaustion. The theological foundation of this commandment is here stated as the creation, for even God rested the seventh day and therefore blessed the Sabbath Day and consecrated it. (pp. 10-11)

They emphasize the Jubilee, which was established by a God-given set of rules that tied property not to wealth, but to family ownership.

The authors oppose our culture, with its emphasis on accumulation:
Israel was to live in an economy of enough for all and reject the economy of excess accumulation for some and hunger for others. Israel was to remember that they were once slaves in Egypt, so as never to repeat that experience in their new life in the Promised Land. For Egypt and Canaan, then Assyria and Babylon (and later Rome) all practiced socioeconomic systems of wealth accumulation and centralized power and of resultant poverty and marginalization. Israel's later rulers fell into the same evil pattern again and again. To remember the Lord and the Lord's deliverance from Egypt was necessarily to practice justice, to care for the needy and vulnerable, to make sure that all God's people had enough. Israel's vocation was to create an alternative social possibility. (pp. 38-39)

The authors argue (pp. 93-5) that there are economic justice overtones in healing of the paralytic (Mark 2:1-12), and in plucking grain on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23-28). They claim that parable of the talents is about exposing the harshness of the rich master. (Matt 25:14-30, pp. 102-3) They also claim that the central theme of Christ's message, in his first sermon in Luke 4:16-30, is at least partly economic justice. (pp. 103-6)

Perhaps this quotation summarizes Kinsler and Kinsler best:
Jesus' identification with tax collectors and sinners/debtors, the transformation of Levi and Zacchaeus, and their subsequent actions were all subversive of the dominant customs and structures of oppression. They were manifestations of Sabbath economics, Jubilee spirituality, and liberty for all God's people. (p. 120)

It seems to me that the authors are on to something, and something that much of the Christian church doesn't want to hear. It makes me uncomfortable, too. On the other hand, they are clearly biased in one direction, and have left out some passages of Scripture, or some interpretations, that don't make their case. At least one example is in Acts 6, where the 12 Apostles clearly thought that the message of salvation had a higher priority for them, as leaders, than taking care of the needs of the poor. (The church did take care of those needs, but the Apostles don't seem to have.)

Response to comment on science in Tolkien and Lewis

On November 11th, I posted a comment on some of the science in the writing of J. R. R. Tolkien and C. S. Lewis. The post was meant to poke gently. As I have indicated, Tolkien and Lewis are two of the writers who have most influenced me, and I honor their achievement. No human writer has created a perfect work.

I did not, but should have, indicated that I was speaking of Lewis's Narnia books, not the space trilogy.

I received three comments, which is a landslide for this blog, and I much appreciate all three. The last commenter, Jeremy Pierce, said, in part:

"Tolkien's world is not flat. It's this world in the distant past."

Sorry, but I stand by my original statement, which idea was not original with me. Tolkien's world was meant to be flat, at least in the earliest times described in the Silmarillion. (Unfortunately, I am on an extended absence from home, and didn't bring that book with me, so I am operating without full documentation here.) As I recall it, the two lights of the ancient world lit the whole earth, which would not have been possible if it had been spherical. Kristine Larsen's long, but excellent, article on the Astronomy of Middle-Earth mentions the flatness toward the end. See also this document, part VB 2. Try a Google search on Middle-Earth flat, and you will find many other references to this.

Pierce also said:

"Many famous dwarves in the lists could have been women for all we know." True, but I believe I am correct that only one was mentioned as being female, and I doubt seriously that any such famous dwarves were meant to be female by Tolkien.

Tolkien isn't the only one to have had mostly, or entirely, male dwarfs (or dwarves). As I pointed out, Lewis also does. So, for that matter, did Snow White. As I recall the tales of King Arthur, by Howard Pyle, there are quite a few dwarves there, too, and all of them were also male (but so were the knights).

Pierce also points out that Sauron had enslaved not only Mordor, but other lands, and that these were supposed to have supplied Mordor (or, as he says, perhaps the supplying was done by evil magic of Sauron). Pierce is correct. However, my point, which was not well made, was that it seemed to me that Tolkien had fictionally amassed such a large army, including some large beings that would have required lots of provender, and in such an isolated place, that provisioning from afar by horse and wagon train, or some such, doesn't really seem realistic.

The Christian's Secret of a Happy Life, pt. 10

I continue a series of excerpts from The Christian's Secret of a Happy Life by Hannah Whitall Smith. The book, which is public domain, is available on-line in its entirety here. This version is somewhat different from the paperback I have in my physical possession. (New York: Ballentine Books, 1986) For an article on Smith, in Christian History, go here. This Chapter is entitled "Bondage or Liberty." The paragraph below is quoted exactly, from the paperback version, p. 133.

Legal Christians do not deny Christ; they only seek to add something to Christ. Their idea is, Christ and -- something besides. Perhaps it is Christ and good works, or Christ and earnest feelings, or Christ and clear doctrines, or Christ and certain religious performances. All these are good in themselves, and good as the results of fruits of salvation; but to add anything to Christ, no matter how good it may be, as the procuring cause of salvation, is to deny His completeness, and to exalt self.

Why is there sex?

When I taught biology, I could count on an answer to that question, whenever I asked it: "reproduction!"

I then pointed out that many organisms reproduce just fine, thank you, without any sexual activity, and that an awful lot of sexual activity, especially in humans, has little or nothing to do with reproduction.

So why is there sex? Well, I'll give the common biology text answer. (The real one, of course, is "I don't know," or "That's the way God made things," or some such expression of ignorance.) That answer is that sexual processes are a means of combining the genes of two parent organisms, thus allowing better combinations of their genes to appear in their offspring, and be selected for.

Sex is not found in all species of organisms. Where it is found, it often has profound consequences -- consider the fate of the male praying mantis, for example. Regardless, I'm glad it exists, because without it, I wouldn't be here.

Another, related question, that we also can't answer is how Jesus Christ originated. Did he have any genetic material from Mary? Was a Divine sperm created within her womb, by the Holy Spirit, that united with one of her eggs? We don't know.

I have also posted on "Why do living things have cells?"

Thanks for reading.

Sunspots 31

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

Whether you're a Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Wesleyan, Pentecostal, or other evangelical Protestant, you should read an interview with Ben Witherington, to find out what's the matter with your theology.

On the Bible Forum, a post on What the Bible Says About Itself, with several comments.

There are hearing aids to enhance "normal" hearing.

Article on biodiesel in Wired.

National Public Radio has a web page giving the status of Intelligent Design teaching (or not) in the public schools of each state.

The President's Council on Bioethics has published Taking Care: Ethical Caregiving in an Aging Society. It is available in HTML and .PDF formats. (It is book-length) Thanks, daughter, for bringing this to my attention.

This week's Christian Carnival is here.

Image source (public domain)

Did You Get It?

My wife and I were privileged to spend a few hours in Yosemite National Park a few days ago. We took our cameras. Nearly everybody else we saw had one, too. Once I heard the question that our own family has sometimes posed: "Did you get it?" What does that mean? The question assumes that it is possible to capture, digitally or chemically, a scene from nature, or human interaction. Can we really do that? If we have gotten it, what have we gotten?

These thoughts are not original, but I don't know any particular source for them. This rather long article has some of the same thoughts, but I've thought them before. You probably have, too.

Bridal Veil falls is still falling. I'm not there to see it. The digital image I am posting is far from a perfect representation of the experience of being down below the waterfall. Even if I could post a motion picture, with audio, it still wouldn't fully capture the experience. There would be no smells, for example. And I can't capture Bridal Veil Falls. It's still there, even at night when no one is looking. So why do I try? Why do web services like Flickr exist? (I know -- nothing else is exactly like Flickr).

In part, I think, because I want to own the experience. I also want to prove to others that I do. I hope there's nothing wrong with that, but an experience with nature, or an experience with other persons, is something to be experienced, not owned. It can only be partly communicated, no matter how skilled the photographer is. I'll never own Bridal Veil Falls. God does.

Quotations on images and art

1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see in a mirror, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know fully even as also I was fully known. (ASV)

Art, like sex, cannot be carried on indefinitely solo; after all they have the same mutual enemy, sterility. Ursula K. Le Guin, "A Citizen of Mondath," pp. 25-30 in Susan Wood, ed., The Language of the Night (New York: Putnam, 1979), p. 27

I have no photograph of her that's any good. I cannot even see her face distinctly in my imagination. Yet the odd face of some stranger seen in a crowd this morning may come before me in vivid perfection the moment I close my eyes tonight. No doubt, the explanation is simple enough. We have seen the faces of those we know best so variously, from so many angles, in so many lights, with so many expressions--waking, sleeping, laughing, crying, eating, talking, thinking--that all the impressions crowd into our memory together and cancel out into a mere blur. C. S. Lewis, A Grief Observed. New York: Bantam Books, 1976. pp. 16-17.

The Christian's Secret of a Happy Life, pt. 9

I continue a series of excerpts from The Christian's Secret of a Happy Life by Hannah Whitall Smith. The book, which is public domain, is available on-line in its entirety here. This version is somewhat different from the paperback I have in my physical possession. (New York: Ballentine Books, 1986) For an article on Smith, in Christian History, go here. This Chapter is entitled "Is God in Everything?" The material below is quoted exactly, from the text at the first link in this post. However, where there are blank lines between paragraphs, I have omitted material.

One of the greatest obstacles to living unwaveringly this life of entire surrender is the difficulty of seeing God in everything. People say, "I can easily submit to things which come from God; but I cannot submit to man, and most of my trials and crosses come through human instrumentality."

For nearly everything in life comes to us through human instrumentalities, and most of our trials are the result of somebody's failure, or ignorance, or carelessness, or sin. We know God cannot be the author of these things, and yet unless He is the agent in the matter, how can we say to Him about it, "Thy will be done"?

The question here confronts us at once, "But is God in everything, and have we any warrant from the Scripture for receiving everything from His hands, without regarding the second causes which may have been instrumental in bringing it about?" I answer to this, unhesitatingly, Yes. To the children of God everything comes directly from their Father's hand, no matter who or what may have been the apparent agents. There are no "second causes" for them.
The whole teaching of the Bible asserts and implies this. "Not a sparrow falls to the ground without our Father." The very hairs of our head are all numbered. We are not to be careful about anything, because our Father cares for us. We are not to avenge ourselves, because our Father has charged Himself with our defence. We are not to fear, for the Lord is on our side. No one can be against us, because He is for us. We shall not want, for He is our Shepherd. When we pass through the rivers they shall not overflow us, and when we walk through the fire we shall not be burned, because He will be with us. He shuts the mouths of lions, that they cannot hurt us.

I wish it were only possible to make every Christian see this truth as plainly as I see it; for I am convinced it is the only clue to a completely restful life. Nothing else will enable a soul to live only in the present moment, as we are commanded to do, and to take no thought for the morrow. Nothing else will take all the risks and "supposes" out of a Christian's heart, and enable him to say, "Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life."

C. S. Lewis (and Tolkien) and biology

Let me make one thing perfectly clear. I appreciate the writing of C. S. Lewis, and have been deeply influenced by it, I hope. As evidence, I cite my article on the bioethics of C. S. Lewis, which was published in hard copy, and has been posted, by the American Scientific Affiliation, which I appreciate. (They did so without mentioning my affiliation with SWU, because I was on sabbatical at Bryan College when I presented this to the annual meeting of the ASA. I am grateful to both institutions.) Unfortunately, there was an error in scanning the document. "o, n bod % *" should be "own body." As more evidence, I posted, earlier this year, a series on temptations in the Narnia books (see here for last post). I subscribe to, and read, Arevanye's C. S. Lewis blog.

Here's another thing to make clear: If you think reading any criticism of the details in Lewis' books would spoil your future reading of his works, don't read this post any further.

A third clarification: Please remember that this blog is subtitled "musings . . ." That's what this post is.

I found Lewis in the children's section of the University of Wisconsin library, around 1960. Perhaps I should have been studying for my courses, or working on my research, but I'm glad I found the Narnia books. I have read them many times. I look forward with mixed feelings to the forthcoming film based on the series.

Lewis has been criticized, I believe by Tolkien, for one, for not being careful with details. (If anyone out there can put a reference for this in a comment, I'd appreciate it! Thanks in advance.)

Here are some of the details that don't ring true to me.

1) No females. I know, there are females on Mars, in Out of the Silent Planet, and female characters have strong roles to play in Perelandra, That Hideous Strength, and the Narnia books. Till We Have Faces is narrated by the main character, a female. But there are strange gaps. There don't seem to be any female dwarves, or marshwiggles, or earthmen, in the Narnia books.

2) Populations too small. Aslan could, of course, maintain them, no matter how small. But, in Prince Caspian, there seem to be just a handful, or even less, of hags, bears, badgers, werewolves, and others. There are a number of real species of organisms on current real endangered lists, with more than a handful of members. Inbreeding, accidents, and the like take their toll. Species can't be expected to survive with numbers as small as Lewis implied.

3) Food and supplies. Authors often neglect this. I probably would, too. Most fiction works are not about agriculture or commerce. But, for example, how does the giant house, Harfang, heat itself? Lewis describes profligacy in heating it, from wood fuel, but Harfang is in the middle of a "desolate, rocky plain" (The Silver Chair, New York: Macmillan, 1953, p. 78) which is apparently treeless, and Jill, Eustace and Puddleglum spent all morning and part of the afternoon getting to it from where they first saw it, with no suggestion that they went through a forest. There is mention of hunting parties, but none of wood-seeking parties.

Where did Tumnus shop? There is no mention of any market, or even building, in the first part of The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, save the castle of the witch.

How did Narnia survive the long winter caused by the witch? Such a winter would have cut off almost all agriculture, grazing, etc.

4) Paths under the ocean. The sea-people in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader are described as riding something like sea-horses, which swim. Presumably they do, too. Lucy sees paths at the bottom of the ocean, used by the sea-people. Why would they need paths, or how would they even make them?

Some parallels between Tolkien and Lewis's subcreations:

1) Both of them had some female characters, but both of them seemed to have whole populations with no females. (I'm not including the Ents.) Though Tolkien wrote that it was difficult or impossible for non-dwarves to differentiate the sexes, he mentions only one female dwarf, Dís, Thorin's sister, in the trilogy, The Hobbit, or The Silmarillion, and she was a very minor character. (Besides my memory, see the entry on her in The Encyclopedia of Arda.) I don't recall any evidence of female orcs at all.

2) Both of them created flat worlds.

3) Both of them had an interest in stars. In The Last Battle, Jill Pole is described as being very familiar with the stars as guides. Frodo and Sam saw a star while in Mordor, and this encouraged them. Stars are characters in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, and Elrond's father became a star, or at least a beacon in the sky, in Tolkien's world.

4) Both of them created worlds that, in many ways, were medieval. Horses, armor, swords and spears and bows and arrows, castles, or at least castle-like buildings, all abound.

5) I really wonder how Mordor, a desert waste, but with vast hordes of various kinds of beings in it, was provisioned.

Crumbolst has posted some insightful commentary on The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, which sort of considers the same ideas as I am here.

I previously posted on my own article, but thought, as the time for the opening of the movie based on the first book in the Narnia series approaches, that it made sense to do so again. This post is not a duplicate of the former one.

Thanks for reading!

* * * * *

Added Jan 22, 2008: A subsequent post, responding to a comment on this one, may be found here.

Perspectives: Christianity & Science, Mar 2003

Unfortunately, the American Scientific Affiliation is not an organization that is widely known. Too bad. This organization, of and for evangelical scientists, has existed for several decades, and publishes a quarterly journal, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. The articles, book reviews, and letters in that publication are posted on-line for public access after a delay of several months.

The March, 2003 issue is available. There are several articles, including the following (articles are in .pdf format):
"Looking to the Birds: A Perspective on the Interpretation of Nature," by David Lahti is hard to classify, but it's a splendid meditation on God and nature. The birds described are African weaverbirds. Lahti quotes from, among others, C. S. Lewis, John Bunyan, Søren Kierkegaard and John Calvin, as well as citing or quoting several scientific sources.

"Miracles, Intelligent Design, and God-of-the-Gaps," by Jack Collins and "The Panda’s Thumb: Design and Optimality from Plato to Endo," by Richard Thornhill, are important contributions to the discussion of Intelligent Design. Thornhill argues that, in ancient times, design was not believed to always result in perfection, hence minimizing one of the arguments against ID.

Carol Hill and Art Hill (unrelated, so far as I know) have an exchange of letters on whether Noah's flood was world-wide or not.

There are other items which should also be of interest.

Sunspots 30

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

Rebekah has linked to an answer to a question that may be important to some of you: "Can you quote from the ESV Bible in your postings?" The answer is "yes," but, understandably, the ESV people would like to be acknowledged. It shouldn't be difficult to do so. I, personally, am saving this post by the ESV Bible Blog to my computer for future reference. For anyone who doesn't know, the English Standard Version is a modern translation, available on-line. I use one of their RSS feeds for my daily Bible reading. No translation is perfect, but this one is pretty good, and uses modern language. Thanks to Rebekah and the ESV people.

Mice not only squeak, they can sing. This is a report in Nature News, this is the original article.

Carl Zimmer writes about current speculations on the function of color change in leaves.

Physics Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg on previous Nobel laureate Albert Einstein's mistakes in physics. (This one's a little heavy on the physics, but non-physicists should be able to understand it.)

Post on The Panda's Thumb, on the discussion of Haeckel's photos of embryos by Jonathan Wells, author of Icons of Evolution, claiming that Wells has distorted the facts.

Katherine is in France, and things, especially the healthcare system, are different than that in the U. S.

Here's a post on white stags in literature, including literature by Rowling, Lewis, and others.

Christine Rosen in The New Atlantis on how the ubiquity of images, and our ability to produce and manipulate them, is now, and may, affect our culture. Sample:

Two things in particular are at stake in our contemporary confrontation with an image-based culture: First, technology has considerably undermined our ability to trust what we see, yet we have not adequately grappled with the effects of this on our notions of truth. Second, if we are indeed moving from the era of the printed word to an era dominated by the image, what impact will this have on culture, broadly speaking, and its institutions? What will art, literature, and music look like in the age of the image?

Warning: This is not a short posting, but a lengthy article. Rosen considers the effects of Photoshop and PowerPoint, and the "MTV effect," and historical precedents for current digital imaging and manipulation.

A proposal for a new vision or focus for the space program, which sounds suspiciously like that of the bad guys, which sounded so ridiculous when Ransom translated it in Out of the Silent Planet, by C. S. Lewis.

This week's Christian Carnival is here. (The link is to the blog, not the post. If you go to the link, you may not see the Christian Carnival, unless you click on the Archives.)

Image source (public domain)

Colored leaves in heaven?

I'm currently living in Southern California, where there isn't a lot of evidence of fall color change. (There's some--there are quite a few sweet gums grown here.)

A post by Bonnie, consisting of a photo of yellow maple leaves, lead to this musing. (I thought about writing "only yellow maple leaves," or "just yellow maple leaves," but decided that no leaf or leaves should be minimized in that way.) The musing is this -- will leaves change their colors in heaven?

I know of no scriptural evidence on that matter. However, C. S. Lewis put it like this, writing about heaven after Narnia:
"All of the old Narnia that mattered, all the dear creatures, have been drawn into the real Narnia through the Door." (The Last Battle, New York: Macmillan, 1956)

There is scriptural evidence for leaves in heaven.

What do you think?

Voldemort as sociopath: Evil in the Harry Potter books

Two days ago, I posted on this same subject, more or less (actually, it was about the evilness, or lack thereof, of Draco Malfoy) and received a comment by personal e-mail. I have asked, and obtained, permission to use it. The comment, slightly edited, follows:

Voldemort is definitely evil. if you want to find an evil character, you need look no further. I know that we all knew that Voldemort was evil from book one, but what has impressed me as a reader is the way that Rowling has developed his character. Having done some reading on sociopaths and serial killers, I can tell that Rowling has obviously done her homework. Even little things about Voldemort's character and the way he responds to his world as a young man growing up are classic sociopathic things...things that have been researched in real people. That impresses me. Even though Rowling is a writer of the fantastic, and Voldemort is the ultimate evil, the fact that she bases all of her characters, even Voldemort, on things that are characteristic of real people is what makes the stories so readable.

Thanks for the comment!

The Christian's Secret of a Happy Life, pt. 8

I continue a series of excerpts from The Christian's Secret of a Happy Life by Hannah Whitall Smith. The book, which is public domain, is, available on-line in its entirety here. This version is somewhat different from the paperback I have in my physical possession. (New York: Ballentine Books, 1986) The material in this post is quoted from the link. Blank lines represent omitted material.

Here is some of what Smith had to say on "Difficulties Concerning Failures."

Of course, in speaking of sin here, I mean conscious, known sin. I do not touch on the subject of sins of ignorance, or what is called the inevitable sin of our nature, which are all covered by the atonement, and do not disturb our fellowship with God. I have no desire nor ability to treat of the doctrines concerning sin; these I will leave with the theologians to discuss and settle, while I speak only of the believer's experience in the matter. And I wish it to be fully understood that in all I shall say, I have reference simply to that which comes within the range of our consciousness.
Misunderstanding, then, on this point of known or conscious sin, opens the way for great dangers in the higher Christian life. When a believer, who has, as he trusts, entered upon the highway of holiness, finds himself surprised into sin, he is tempted either to be utterly discouraged, and to give everything up as lost; or else, in order to preserve the doctrine untouched, he feels it necessary to cover his sin up, calling it infirmity, and refusing to be honest and above-board about it. Either of these courses is equally fatal to any real growth and progress in the life of holiness. The only way is to face the sad fact at once, call the thing by its right name, and discover, if possible, the reason and the remedy. This life of union with God requires the utmost honesty with Him and with ourselves. The communion which the sin itself would only momentarily disturb, is sure to be lost by any dishonest dealing with it. A sudden failure is no reason for being discouraged and giving up all as lost. Neither is the integrity of our doctrine touched by it. We are not preaching a state, but a walk. The highway of holiness is not a place, but a way.

We can only walk in this path by looking continually unto Jesus, moment by moment; and if our eyes are taken off of Him to look upon our own sin and our own weakness, we shall leave the path at once. The believer, therefore, who has, as he trusts, entered upon this highway, if he finds himself overcome by sin, must flee with it instantly to the Lord. He must act on 1 John 1:9: "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." He must not hide his sin and seek to salve it over with excuses, or to push it out of his memory by the lapse of time. But he must do as the children of Israel did, rise up "early in the morning," and "run" to the place where the evil thing is hidden, and take it out of its hiding-place, and lay it "out before the Lord." He must confess his sin. And then he must stone it with stones, and burn it with fire, and utterly put it away from him, and raise over it a great heap of stones, that it may be forever hidden from his sight. And he must believe, then and there, that God is, according to His word, faithful and just to forgive him his sin, and that He does do it; and further, that He also cleanses him from all unrighteousness. He must claim an immediate forgiveness and an immediate cleansing by faith, and must go on trusting harder and more absolutely than ever.

More on Draco Malfoy

A couple of months ago, I posted my take on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. In that post, I compared a choice made by Draco Malfoy to the choice made by Saruman, when Gandalf confronted him in his tower, after the fall of Sauron. (Which episode was, most unfortunately, left out of the Peter Jackson movie.)

This comparison hasn't sat well with one of my readers, who sees Malfoy as, at least in part, a victim of circumstances, and she has given me evidence, from J. K. Rowling's own mouth, that Draco isn't as totally despicable as I portrayed him. I guess I was looking for somebody totally and completely bad in the Potter series, and wasn't sure that Snape would fill that role, so fixed on Malfoy.

The evidence is in the second part of a long interview with Rowling, toward the bottom. Here's the most relevant part: "Harry is correct in believing that Draco would not have killed Dumbledore . . ."

Thanks, daughter!

Primary Inversion, by Catherine Asaro

I have now read my second novel by Catherine Asaro, Primary Inversion, also set in the Skolian Empire. (The title is because the means of faster-than-light travel is an inversion, whatever that is.) Primary Inversion precedes The Last Hawk, but there is no compelling reason that they have to be read in that order. Will I read more Asaro? Maybe. Her Quantum Rose got some good reviews, but I haven't seen it yet.

I previously said that I couldn't remember the hero of The Last Hawk. He is mentioned, but never appears, in Primary Inversion, and I have remembered him because of this--his name is Kelric. He has been missing for some time in Primary Inversion. I know where he went, because I read The Last Hawk first.

Sauscony, Kelric's sister, is a more memorable character than Kelric. They, and other siblings, are Rhon. Rhon are very rare, mostly in Sauscony's family. They have several special genes in homozygous condition, and having these gives them psionic powers. They can read minds, to some extent, and are empaths--they feel what others are feeling. I won't give away the plot anymore than that. At least the broad strokes of the plot are quite predictable.

Sauscony's character has to do with several others that she loves, including her parents, and others, and the conflicts that these loves cause.

The Skolian Empire is large--many stars, and is held together by the Skolnet. The Skolnet is a psionic and computer communications network. It depends on the mental activity of three persons for its existence. These are the emperor, Sauscony's brother, her father, and her aunt. One of the shortcomings of the book is that Sauscony's aunt's effect on the Skolnet is described, but the aunt never appears, and is not described, or even named. Another shortcoming, at least to me, is the whole concept of a psionic network. I'm not convinced that such a thing is possible. If it were, why would it depend on only three people, all of whom have other things to occupy their time, and who also have to sleep, for its existence? (One of them is so technically inexpert that he can't log on by himself!) What does it mean, if anything, to be able to visualize a psionic/computer network? (I know that William Gibson, in Neuromancer, and Dan Simmons, in some of his Hyperion novels, and, no doubt, others, have also supposed such a thing, but I have difficulty vizualizing their visualizations) Could it be jacked into, with a physical connection to the central nervous system?

The Last Hawk, by Catherine Asaro

Let's put it this way. I was sorry when I finished this book. (Catherine Asaro, The Last Hawk, New York: Tor, 1997) I wanted to know what would happen.

This is the first Asaro I have read. She writes what is sometimes called "hard" science fiction, that is, fiction relying on forseeable scientific developments for setting or plot. (Asaro has a doctorate in science.) It seemed more like space opera to me. A noble from the Skolian Empire (there are other books by her about that--the nobility are empaths, and augmented by internal computers and other technology) crash-lands on a planet which isn't in contact with that Empire, and fears such contact. He survives, and becomes a leading player in the politics and economy of the new planet. He is an empath, and is computer and otherwise augmented. He also becomes the husband of three different women (not at the same time, and, in one case against his will--two of them die while he is married to them) and, counting a previous girl who died on his home world, has three loves of his life. That's a lot. He sires two children.

The society is run by women. Men have some importance, but are subordinate. The most important cultural peculiarity of the society is quis, a game/ceremony/art form/something that everyone plays or does, with small objects of many shapes and colors, called dice. (They don't seem to be thrown, and there doesn't seem to be a random element in quis.) Some men are specialists at quis, and this is their greatest contribution to the culture. Asaro presents quis as a way of settling contests with others, and a way of influencing planet-wide culture, and also as a way of representing scientific concepts like atomic structure. It's a fascinating idea, but not fully fleshed out, in my opinion. I couldn't visualize the game, nor could I comprehend how manually placing objects, one at a time, could accomplish all that she said it did in anything like a reasonable amount of time. I also couldn't comprehend how male quis-players in one province influenced female leaders in another, when the males who specialize in quis are kept isolated.

There was little consideration of ethical issues, as, say, Ursula K. Le Guin does. More importantly, I find that the book doesn't exactly pass Le Guin's "Mrs. Brown" test:

A quite good simple test to detect the presence or absence of Mrs. Brown in a work of fiction is this: A month or so after reading the book, can you remember her name? It's silly, but it works pretty well. For instance, almost anybody who reads Pride and Prejudice will remember the names Elizabeth and Darcy, probably for very much longer than a month.
- Ursula K. Le Guin, "Science Fiction and Mrs. Brown," pp. 101-119 in Susan Wood, ed., The Language of the Night (New York: Putnam, 1979), p. 104.

By "Mrs. Brown," Le Guin, following Virginia Woolf, is speaking of character. Is there a real character in the book? I can't remember the name of the Skolian noble, and it's been less than a month. I do remember the name of the last woman he came to love, probably because it has an "x" in it. Ixpar is a memorable name. Our Skolian noble disappears at the end, probably going back to the empire, where, presumably, he is part of at least one more book.

Nonetheless, an entertaining book.

Sunspots 29

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

How Einstein dealt with e-mail. (OK, not exactly)

Scott Gilbreath, a Christian statistician, has a good post on Intelligent Design, "Random does not mean unguided."

Brandy pointed me to the Wired article on the Christian bloggers' convention.

Arevanye has posted a quote from C. S. Lewis on what he thought of scientific theories, and another one on what CSL thought about Christ's only destructive miracle, that of the fig tree.

This week's Christian Carnival is here.

I make no apology for the brevity of this week's Sunspots, but do explain that my wife and I are engaged in serious baby-sitting, and, next to raising our own daughters, helping to raise a grandson is the most important thing I've ever done. (His father's work currently has taken him three time zones away, and his mother's six hours away.) There's less blogging, and web-surfing, time available.

The Wave in the Mind by Ursula K. Le Guin

In this book, several short essays by Le Guin are presented, most of them for the first time in formal print.

She covers many topics. One of them is the process of writing. Le Guin, arguably the most important writer of fantastic fiction in North America in the last half of the twentieth century, and continuing into the twenty-first, knows a lot about writing, and has taught it in many writers' workshops. To summarize too briefly, her advice on writing is twofold. First, be true to your story, because story is important. Second, listen to the constructive criticism of others.

Some of the other topics include:
an attack on Edward O. Wilson, author of Sociobiology, principally for being too simplistic in his understanding of such fields as sociology and anthropology. (Le Guin's father was an important anthropologist.)
some of what her early life was like.
a few drawings--she's pretty good.
an attack on Tolstoy for the famous sentence that begins his Anna Karenina, something like (depending on the translation) "All happy families are alike, but each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."
rhythm in writing and reading, even of prose.
her appreciation of Peter Jackson's first Tolkien film, and her understanding of why the pace, etc., must be different from books, in film. (Le Guin has been publicly unhappy about a film version of some of her own work, for valid reasons. At least two of her works have been filmed.)
a brief analysis of the work of the late Cordwainer Smith, who happens to be one of my own favorite fantasy authors.

She argues for the importance of fantastic literature:

Fantasy is, after all, the oldest kind of narrative fiction, and the most universal. . . .
Fantasies are often set in ordinary life, but the material of fantasy is a more permanent, universal reality than the social customs realism deals with. The substance of fantasy is psychic stuff, human constants: situations and imageries we recognise without having to learn or know anything at all about New York now, or London in 1850, or China three thousand years ago. Ursula K. Le Guin, "Things not Actually Present: On The Book of Fantasy and J. L. Borges," in The Wave in the Mind: Talks and Essays on the Writer, the Reader, and the Imagination. Boston: Shambhala, 2004. pp. 38-45. Quote is from pp. 43. Originally appeared as the introduction to The Book of Fantasy, Viking, 1988.

Le Guin quotes Virginia Woolf for the source of her title: "A sight, an emotion, creates this wave in the mind, long before it makes words to fit it . . . " (Le Guin, p. 280)

* * * *

Note added on November 2nd: I should have included this link to the Project Gutenberg Anna Karenina text.

The Christian's Secret of a Happy Life, pt. 7

I continue a series of excerpts from The Christian's Secret of a Happy Life by Hannah Whitall Smith. The book, which is public domain, is available on-line in its entirety here. This version is somewhat different from the paperback I have in my physical possession. (New York: Ballentine Books, 1986) For an article on Smith, in Christian History, go here.

This is some of what Smith had to say on "Difficulties Concerning Temptation"

It seems hardly worth while to say that temptation is not sin, and yet most of the distress about it arises from not understanding this fact. The very suggestion of wrong seems to bring pollution with it, and the evil agency not being recognized, the poor tempted soul begins to feel as if it must be very bad indeed, and very far off from God to have had such thoughts and suggestions. It is as though a burglar should break into a man's house to steal, and, when the master of the house began to resist him and to drive him out, should turn round and accuse the owner of being himself the thief. It is the enemy's grand ruse for entrapping us. He comes and whispers suggestions of evil to us, doubts, blasphemies, jealousies, envyings, and pride; and then turns round and says, "Oh, how wicked you must be to think of such things! It is very plain that you are not trusting the Lord; for if you were, it would have been impossible for these things to have entered your heart." This reasoning sounds so very plausible that the soul often accepts it as true, and at once comes under condemnation, and is filled with discouragement; then it is easy for it to be led on into actual sin. One of the most fatal things in the life of faith is discouragement. One of the most helpful is cheerfulness. A very wise man once said that in overcoming temptations, cheerfulness was the first thing, cheerfulness the second, and cheerfulness the third. We must expect to conquer. That is why the Lord said so often to Joshua, "Be strong and of a good courage"; "Be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed"; "Only be thou strong and very courageous." And it is also the reason He says to us, "Let not your heart he troubled neither let it be afraid." The power of temptation is in the fainting of our own hearts. The enemy knows this well, and always begins his assaults by discouraging us, if it can in any way be accomplished.
Sometimes this discouragement arises from what we think is a righteous grief and disgust at ourselves that such things could be any temptation to us; but which is really a mortification arising from the fact that we have been indulging in a secret self-congratulation that our tastes were too pure, or our separation from the world was too complete for such things to tempt us. We have expected something from ourselves, and have been sorely disappointed not to find that something there, and are discouraged in consequence. This mortification and discouragement are really a far worse condition than the temptation itself, though they present an appearance of true humility, for they are nothing but the results of wounded self-love. True humility can bear to see its own utter weakness and foolishness revealed, because it never expected anything from itself, and knows that its only hope and expectation must be in God. Therefore, instead of discouraging the soul from trusting, it drives it to a deeper and more utter trust. But the counterfeit humility which springs from self, plunges the soul into the depths of a faithless discouragement, and drives it into the very sin at which it is so distressed.

Temptation, therefore, cannot be sin; and the truth is, it is no more a sin to hear these whispers and suggestions of evil in our souls, than it is for us to hear the swearing or wicked talk of bad men as we pass along the street. The sin only comes in either case by our stopping and joining in with them. If, when the wicked suggestions come, we turn from them at once, as we would from wicked talk, and pay no more attention to them, we do not sin. But if we carry them on in our minds, and roll them under our tongues, and dwell on them with a half-consent of our will to them as true, then we sin. We may be enticed by evil a thousand times a day without sin, and we cannot help these enticings. But if the enemy can succeed in making us think that his enticings are our sin, he has accomplished half the battle, and can hardly fail to gain a complete victory.

Sunspots 28

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

I continue to be amazed at the Botany Photo of the Day. (This has an RSS feed) The photos on the page linked are thumbnails, and, if you click, they blow up to large size, and are spectacular. My Bloglines subscription page gives me the large pictures without any such manipulation.

For a time . . . he indulged in pleasures he could now afford. Sanctuary provided them in rich variety. But his tastes did not run to every conceivable kind, and presently those he enjoyed took on a surprising sameness. "Could it be that the gods of vice, even the gods of luxury, have less imagination than the gods of virtue and wholesomeness?" he wondered. The thought appalled. Poul Anderson, "The Lady of the Winds," in David G. Hartwell and Kathryn Cramer, eds, Year's Best Fantasy 2. New York: HarperCollins, 2002, pp. 378-416. Quote is from p. 379. Story originally appeared in The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, 2001. C. S. Lewis said somewhat the same thing, I believe, in The Screwtape Letters.

Article "In the Wake of Katrina: Has "Bioethics" Failed?" saying that bioethics mostly veers from controversy to controversy, without building a firm foundation.

Pastor Perry asks, and answers, "Did Jesus Smile?"

Here's a post on whether extraterrestrials are Christian. (Thanks to Catez Stevens of Blogwatch.)

Slate on why South Korea is leading the world in research on embryonic cells. The article discusses, among other things, the fact that Korea is a nation with a lot of evangelical Christians.

from Ken Schenck on interpreting Scripture:
So I find the way IWU professors and the evangelical milieu uses Scripture is in this pre-modern way. They are looking for absolute truth in the words--the "biblical" perspective on whatever issue. I am not saying that this is bad. What I'm pointing out that Paul did not originally understand himself to be writing for all times and all places. Originally, his words had specific meanings in the light of specific situations... When Christian communities use the words of the Bible as the source of their beliefs, most of the time they are working out modern theology and speaking far afield of what Paul originally had in mind.

Articles on the Dover School trial, which concerns the teaching of Intelligent Design as an alternative theory in public schools. Neither article is sympathetic to ID. This one says that Michael Behe admitted that astrology would meet his definition of a theory. This report, in Slate, is for Tuesday, Oct. 18, and has a link to Oct 17th. (I don't know why there aren't more in this series) I am sure there are reports on the trial sympathetic to ID, but I haven't seen them.

Laura Beth Atwood has posted about true repentance, versus false.

Rebecca confesses to something we've probably all done, namely that we focus on ourselves when tragedy strikes others.

Catez considers the question of what makes a blog successful. I commented on her post. So did others. Thanks, Bonnie, for pointing me there. (I subscribe to Catez's blog, and Bonnie's, and too many other people's, but I saw Bonnie's reference before I got to Catez's.)

I finally noticed, as they were together in Alabama a few days ago, that the cabinet persons responsible for dealing with other countries, from both the UK and the US, have names that come from the grass family. I also finally noticed that the links on my Google personal home page have alphabetized themselves.

Spiked article on stem cell research, wisely saying:

All this being said, ethical discussions are not simply an inconvenience that, in an ideal world, would simply not need to take place. The fact that members of a society disagree on such fundamental questions as 'When does life begin?' or 'What price scientific progress?' is part of what makes us human, and our societies democratic. In this sense, the debates that have accompanied the development of stem cell research are just as important as the scientific developments themselves. It is our capacity to debate questions of principle that makes us capable of making big decisions about life.

My wife and I have safely arrived at our destination in the Pacific Time Zone. Thanks for your prayers.

This week's Christian Carnival is here.

Image source (public domain)

Did/does Baal exist? More on Elijah at Mt. Carmel

A person, choosing to remain anonymous, commented on my recent post about Elijah and the encounter at Mt. Carmel as follows:

You stated that, "Probably being sacrificed, even to a non-existent god, defiled a bull for sacrifice to the God of Israel." My question is in regards to the "non-existent god." Do you think monotheism is a) the belief that only one God physically (or I suppose "spiritually" would be a better word) exists, and that all other "gods" are nothing more than imagined beings, or b) the belief that there is one God who alone is holy, righteous, and worthy of worship, who is greater than all other "gods" and is the creator of all other "gods" just as He is the creator of everything else?

I know that option "a" is the traditional answer (or at least that it has been traditional for most of church history) but do you think there is reason enough in the Bible to consider option "b" as being valid? A couple of points off the top of my head - the commandment "have no other gods before me." Sort of an easy one to stick to if no other gods exist, right? The name "most high God" (Daniel 5.18). If there is a "most high" God, doesn't that seem to imply that there are also "less high" gods? Throughout Scripture the term "god" or "gods" is used as though such "lesser gods" do physically/spiritually exist (Psalm 97.7-9). Perhaps we typically call them angels or demons (2 Cor 4.4 - Satan = "the god of this world") and its just a matter of semantics? What do you think?

An interesting book on this subject is God at War by Gregory A. Boyd.

Thanks for your comment. Actually, I thought, as I posted the phrase "non-existent god," that perhaps I ought to have been more careful and precise, but wasn't. Sorry.

Obviously, what I think on this particular question is of limited interest--I am not an authority in this area. However, what the Bible says about it should be of broad interest. As the commenter points out, the Bible seems to indicate that there really are spiritual beings who have power. Although the Bible also seems to teach that physical idols were totally impotent (for example, Dagon, "god" of the Philistines) that doesn't mean that spirits who might have responded to idol worship might not have existed, and have had some limited power. The New Testament indicates, in Ephesians 6:12, that there are spiritual beings with powers.

In other words, I'm not sure that Baal is or was non-existent. Perhaps some evil spirit, called Baal, inspired Baal-worship, and, for all I know, performed miracles in the name of Baal. If some evil spirit was Baal, then it certainly was impotent in the face of the One God of the Hebrews, and should never have been, or be, worshipped. In other words, if I had to vote, I would vote b.

The Christian's Secret of a Happy Life, pt. 6

I continue a series of excerpts from The Christian's Secret of a Happy Life by Hannah Whitall Smith. The book, which is public domain, is, available on-line in its entirety here. This version is somewhat different from the paperback I have in my physical possession. (New York: Ballentine Books, 1986)

These excerpts are from Smith's chapter, "Difficulties Concerning Doubts:"

It seems strange that people, whose very name of Believers implies that their one chiefest characteristic is that they believe, should have to confess to such experiences. And yet it is such a universal habit that I feel if the majority of the Church were to be named over again, the only fitting and descriptive name that could be given them would be that of Doubters. In fact, most Christians have settled down under their doubts, as to a sort of inevitable malady, from which they suffer acutely, but to which they must try to be resigned as a part of the necessary discipline of this earthly life. And they lament over their doubts as a man might lament over his rheumatism, making themselves out as an "interesting case" of especial and peculiar trial, which requires the tenderest sympathy and the utmost consideration.
And this is too often true of believers, who are earnestly longing to enter upon the life and walk of faith, and who have made perhaps many steps towards it. They have got rid, it may be, of the old doubts that once tormented them, as to whether their sins are really forgiven, and whether they shall, after all, get safe to Heaven; but they have not got rid of doubting. They have simply shifted the habit to a higher platform.

I am convinced that to many people doubting is a real luxury, and to deny themselves from indulging in it would be to exercise the hardest piece of self-denial they have ever known.

And this brings me to the practical part of the whole subject, as to how to get deliverance from this fatal habit. My answer would be that the deliverance from this can be by no other means than the deliverance from any other sin. It is to be found in the Lord and in Him only. You must hand your doubting over to Him, as you have learned to hand your other temptations. You must do just what you do with your temper, or your pride. You must give it up to the Lord. I believe myself the only effectual remedy is to take a pledge against it as you would urge a drunkard to do against drink, trusting in the Lord alone to keep you steadfast.

Musings on Elijah at Mt. Carmel

At our church's mid-week service on the 19th, our associate pastor read us I Kings 17-18. Here are some thoughts that came to me during our discussion of the passage.

He told us that the main theme of I Kings 17-18 is obedience. I don't disagree. He, and others in our bible study group, said that Elijah obeyed, and Ahab didn't. True. However, some non-human entities obeyed, too. The weather obeyed God, and so did the ravens, who brought Elijah food, meat and bread, twice a day. Did they have a choice? I doubt it. God is sovereign, and directed the winds and the birds. The people did have a choice. For a time, the Mt. Carmel experience influenced them to obey God.

Where did the ravens get their food? Surely God must have provided it (and the ravens). Behavior like this must be foreign to ravens, or any birds. Perhaps C. S. Lewis had this story in mind when he wrote the part about Aslan's table in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader.

The NIV study bible says that the widow of Zarephath lived in the geographic center of Baal worship, outside of Israel, and indicates that probably Elijah went there during the drought to signify God's supremacy over Baal.

Why did Elijah lie on top of the widow's dead son? Was he revived because of Elijah's faith, as he prayed, or because of Elijah's actions, in lying on top of him, and, perhaps warming him up, or performing rescusitation? The associate pastor said, both. We need to pray, and we need to do what we can.

When the sacrifices were made at Mt. Carmel, each religion had a bull. They could possibly have used the same bull twice, as Elijah knew that Baal wouldn't, and couldn't, send fire for the first one. Probably being sacrificed, even to a non-existent god, defiled a bull for sacrifice to the God of Israel. Elijah asked for two bulls, one for him, and one for the false prophets.

Where did the water come from that was poured over Elijah's sacrifice? One person suggested that this, too, was a sign of obedience. They used what little water was available, as Elijah directed, knowing that, in this drought, water was precious, and valuable for other purposes. It is also possible that the water was carried up from the sea to the top of Mt. Carmel.

Mendelssohn did a great job with the oratorio Elijah. My state university performed this music twice while I was there, and it was my privilege to be part of the chorus both times. You can hear much of the oratorio here, done with electronic instruments--I missed the chorus and orchestra! (I found these audio files with this search engine)

Ethical ways (?) to produce embryonic stem cells, 2

blog.bioethics.net has a post condemning Nature for its publication of two articles on alternative methods for producing embryonic stem cells. The author says that the science isn't important enough to meet Nature's standards. (Nature is perhaps the most important scientific periodical in the world. For example, the original Watson and Crick paper was published it its pages. It is not freely available on the Internet.)

The author goes on to say that these methods, should they be tested in humans, and prove effective, will still probably meet with religious/ethical objections, and indicates the reasons for such objections.

Travel Hiatus & prayer request

I referred to our daughter's military status earlier.

She has now been deployed, not to Iraq, but to a base about six hours away. Her husband has been caring for our now one-year-old grandson, but his job requires him to travel, so my wife and I are planning to travel West for an indeterminate period, beginning in a couple of days. (She may be deployed to Iraq sometime. There are, of course, other military families in much worse separation situations.)

Pray, please, that every detail of our preparation, journey, and living elsewhere will be what He wants it.

I don't expect to post as regularly, probably for the next couple of months. Will probably do so occasionally.

Thanks for reading.

Addendum: October 28, 2006

Thanks to anyone who prayed. It was a great experience for us, and, we hope, for our grandson and his parents.

Sunspots 27

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

Katy McKenna Raymond, Christian writer, has gorgeous graphics on her blog.

The Anchoress decides that we can't be sure if the Kashmiri earthquake, Rita, Katrina, Tammy, etc., are signs of the end, but that we need to be sure of our relationship to Christ. Parableman writes on the same topic, more or less. He says that the end times "began with Jesus' incarnation, death, resurrection, and ascension."

Bonnie refers to one of my posts in her discussion of "When does a human life begin?" I still owe her a response.

Penitens preaches on origins. His points are that God's creative ability is mentioned in scripture, and can be recognized with anyone with good sense, and that it is dangerous to read scriptural warnings as if they were for others, or about things that we especially don't like. He is right -- we have all sinned.

Weekend Fisher writes carefully and lovingly about redemption and other religions.

Nature News has articles about harnessing energy from ocean waves, here and here.

Residents of the U. S. will be amazed at Katherine's description of a trip to the doctor in France. Here's more from her on the same subject.

Two Firefox extensions I am trying are Nuke Anything Enhanced, which can be used to eliminate parts of web pages you don't want to see or print. It's one of the Web Annoyances extensions. Once Nuke Anything Enhanced is installed, you can right-click on items on a web page, and one of the options is "Remove This Item." ReminderFox is supposed to serve as a calendar. It is under Entertainment extensions, or here, where you will also find the FAQ.

William Saletan says that "lefties" have trouble with the beginning of life -- recognizing the significance of zygotes and early embryos, and the right has trouble with the end -- placing too much significance on someone who is dying, or near to it.

The principal of a Catholic high school has cancelled the school's prom, not, he says, because of the fornication, or the intemperate or illegal alcohol consumption (although there has been plenty of both of those, and he wasn't happy with either, apparently) but because of the lavish spending.

My RSS subscription service, Bloglines, has some new features which are helpful, especially the one that lets you see how many new items there are from a feed, versus the ones you checked to keep available from the past. (I am planning to do without the new horoscope and lottery number feeds also available . . .)

I have received no information on this week's Christian Carnival

Image source (public domain)

Ethical ways (?) to produce embryonic stem cells

I have already posted for the day, but this was too hot to pass up, and, besides, the main link may expire. That link is to an article in NewScientist, on two ways that might by-pass objections to embryonic stem cell research, but still use embryonic stem cells. Both original research articles were published in Nature, which is not freely available. Nature has published a commentary on this research, which is available.

The first method is simply to take one of the cells of an eight-celled embryo and use it, but let the remaining, now seven-celled, embryo be implanted and develop. The article says that, when tried in mice, the birth rate of pups from seven-celled embryos was the same as for eight-celled ones. If the same is true of humans, this means that a cell from an early embryo could be harvested, then used to produce embryonic stem cells, but that that early embryo could still be implanted and develop. See the first link above for a brief discussion of research in humans.

The second method is one I have previously reported on, known as ANT. At least some conservative Roman Catholics are not troubled by this possibility (see previous post and comments to it).

Probably the most interesting part of the article in NewScientist is this quote from Arthur Caplan: ". . . this terminology undermines the moral stance of scientists pursuing the other techniques,” says Arthur Caplan of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. “If you hint that it might solve the moral dispute, you’re providing ammunition for opponents, so it’s essential to back the original stance . . ." In other words, Caplan, perhaps the most prominent U. S. bioethicist, seems more concerned with "sticking to his guns" than with a possible way to satisfy ethical concerns.

This post will make up for a coming travel hiatus.

The Case for a Creator, by Lee Strobel, part 3

I continue commenting on Lee Strobel's book, The Case for a Creator, mostly commenting on ideas in the order Strobel has presented them. In summary, the book is a defense of the idea of Intelligent Design (ID). Strobel is not a young-earth creationist. He interprets most scientific evidence in the way most scientists do, with the origin of the variety of living things being a stand-0ut exception.

Much of the book is based on interviews with believers in Intelligent Design. (Strobel's background is journalism, not science)

His second interview is with philosopher Stephen C. Meyer. Meyer, and Strobel, are strongly opposed to the notion that science has ruled out Divine action, and is the only source of truth. According to Strobel, Meyer told him that

. . . to say that science is the only begetter of truth is self-contradicting, because that statement in itself cannot be tested by the scientific method. It's a self-defeating philosophical assumption. Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004. p. 88.

I agree with this statement whole-heartedly. I suspect that many scientists simply accept that "science is the only begetter of truth" as if it were the truth, without having really thought about it. However, even if science isn't the only begetter of truth, that doesn't mean that Meyer (or I) are correct in our views.

Meyer discusses the late Stephen Jay Gould's Rocks of Ages, in which Gould, a paleontologist who was a great teacher and prolific writer on science and its history, writing for intelligent laypersons, not scientists, introduced the idea of non-overlapping magisteria, or NOMA, in which Gould allowed that religious belief had its place, but that it didn't overlap with science at all. Meyer says that what Gould was really doing was to marginalize religion. Ian G. Barbour, in his When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers, or Partners? says that there are four possibilities for the interaction between science and religion, namely conflict, independence, dialogue and interaction. Gould was a believer in independence. I am a believer in integration -- according to Romans 1:20 and Psalm 19, God is revealed in nature. Hence science can tell us part of the truth about the way things are. So can the Bible. The revelation of God, through both scripture and science, would not conflict if we understood them both properly.

Meyer claims that naturalism, pantheism, or dualism are not satisfactory explanations for the way things are.

In general, I agree with Meyer, as presented by Strobel. However, Meyer himself, according to Strobel, says that "You can't absolutely prove -- or disprove -- the existence of God." (p. 100) Again, I agree, based on Hebrews 11:3. If Meyer is correct, Strobel isn't going to be able to prove his Case for a Creator. He can make a case, and that is what he has tried to do in this book.

Meyer has his critics. Jacobsen is one. As he says, quoting Strobel, Meyer says, "I don't think it's right to invoke a self-serving rule that says only naturalistic explanations can be considered in science. Let's have a new period in the history of science where we have methodological rules that actually foster the unfettered seeking of truth."

Jacobsen then says:
I hear this type of argument raised by laypeople quite often. I concede that at first blush, it sounds reasonable. Shouldn't all possibilities be considered when seeking the truth? Yet there is a very simple and legitimate reason why the miraculous or supernatural, even if it exists, cannot be part of scientific investigation: The only tools a scientist has to work with are naturalistic. We have no tool to measure or quantify the miraculous. The bedrock of science is to be able to make testable predictions that can be verified by independent observers. Supernatural explanations rarely provide testable hypotheses. This is not merely a naturalistic bias as Strobel and Meyer would argue; it is simply a statement of fact. - "Another Case not Made: Lee Strobel's Case for a Creator" Paul Jacobsen.

I agree with Jacobsen on that, and, as indicated above, believe that I have scriptural evidence to back this up.

So, by his own arguments, Meyer has shown that Strobel's case can not absolutely be made. In spite of this, Strobel, apparently not accepting this, plans to go on.

On p. 108, Strobel puts forth his plan for going on. He asks "Would the case for a creator hold up when it was scrutinized more carefully and when I could cross-examine experts with all of the questions that plagued me?" This is after interviewing Wells and Meyer. He resolved, he says, to "put experts in cosmology, physics, astronomy, microbiology, biological information, and consciousness to the test and see whether the case is as strong as Meyer claimed." (p. 109) As Jacobsen put it, Strobel's experts are only going to be IDers. There are many scientists who have vigorously attacked ID. Strobel seldom so much as mentions them, let alone questions them about their arguments, or gives them a chance to present them. Also, his experts are not complete. He might well have planned to interview an expert in hominid fossils, but did not.

The Panda's Thumb

Anyone who wants to seriously consider the claims of the Intelligent Design movement with anything resembling an open mind, must, in my opinion, familiarize herself with The Panda's Thumb. This blog is dedicated to attacking the claims of ID. There are several contributors. Most of them make no attempt at being unbiased--they are attempting to refute ID, and discredit leading ID thinkers. Sometimes the posts are silly, sometimes strident, sometimes overkill. Sometimes, however, they seem to be dead on. Recent posts have included an analysis of the change in an ID-pushed textbook from "Creationism" to "Intelligent Design," implying that there was a deliberate strategy to downplay Creationism, because it would be perceived as religious in nature, while ID might not. There are occasional posts using scientific literature to challenge some of the most important claims of, for example, Michael Behe.

I haven't the time or energy to analyze and comment on each and every post (there is usually more than one a day), and I can't imagine anyone else who does, either, but sampling a few will give a reader a sense of the flavor of the blog, and will probably also present some serious substantive argument.

I expect to return to commenting on Lee Strobel's The Case for a Creator, which is an important pro-ID book, in the near future.

Thanks for reading.