More on The Golden Compass

I recently posted about The Golden Compass, an upcoming movie based on a book by Philip Pullman. It's not out yet, but there's some buzz about it.

A post at Speculative Faith, a blog on Christianity and fantastic literature, by Rebecca Luella Miller, explores the possible impact of this movie further, and suggests that the impact might be good, on balance. Although Miller doesn't seem to have read the book, I believe her essay is on target.

Thanks for reading.

Thou God of Glorious Majesty, by Charles Wesley

This year is the 300th anniversary of Charles Wesley's birth. Wesley wrote many hymns. One that I have never heard is "Thou God of Glorious Majesty." These are the words, as posted by the Cyberhymnal:

Thou God of glorious majesty,
To Thee, against myself, to Thee,
A worm of earth, I cry;
A half-awakened child of man;
An heir of endless bliss or pain;
A sinner born to die!

Lo! on a narrow neck of land,
’Twixt two unbounded seas I stand,
Secure, insensible;
A point of time, a moment’s space,
Removes me to that heavenly place,
Or shuts me up in hell.

O God, mine inmost soul convert!
And deeply on my thoughtful heart
Eternal things impress:
Give me to feel their solemn weight,
And tremble on the brink of fate,
And wake to righteousness.

Before me place, in dread array,
The pomp of that tremendous day,
When Thou with clouds shalt come,
To judge the nations at Thy bar;
And tell me, Lord, shall I be there
To meet a joyful doom?

Be this my one great business here,
With serious industry and fear
Eternal bliss to ensure;
Thine utmost counsel to fulfill,
And suffer all Thy righteous will,
And to the end endure.

Then, Savior, then my soul receive,
Transported from this vale to live
And reign with Thee above;
Where faith is sweetly lost in sight,
And hope in full supreme delight,
And everlasting love.

These words were published in 1749, hence are public domain.

Thanks for reading.

What influences the political choices of Christians? Immigration as an issue

A recent poll of likely Republican voters in South Carolina, my state, indicated that illegal immigration is the most important issue to such people. (To Democrats, it's the war in Iraq, and health care. I heard about this poll on the radio this week, but can't document it.) I wish I were surprised by this emphasis on immigration. What happened to the importance of abortion as an issue?

I'm not suggesting that the Republican party is the Christian party. (I don't think either major party is a Christian party. Both of them have Christian members, and also non-Christians.) However, my experience is that many Republican adherents among my friends and neighbors talk as if they believe that it is.

If, as many people used to say, abortion is a life-and-death issue, and opposition to abortion is based on the Bible, what happened to change the importance of the issue? I'm afraid that I know the answer, and that much of it is due to the influence of national commentators, such as Lou Dobbs of CNN. I'm also afraid that the sudden popularity of opposition to illegal immigration is motivated, at least in part, by prejudice, perhaps even hatred, toward those who are different. Another influence is that at least one of the leading Republican candidates is pro-choice, and some Republicans who used to claim to be strongly anti-abortion would rather forget about that issue than lose to a Democrat.

I'm not arguing that Christians (or anyone else) should be for illegal immigration, or that opposition to abortion should be the most important issue for Christians. I am arguing that the most important source of the political inspiration of Christians should be the Bible, not media personalities. For the Christian, there should be sympathy for immigrants, illegal or not, and concern for their spiritual and economic welfare. The Old Testament speaks about being kind to strangers. So does the New. Here's Leviticus 19:
33 “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. 34 You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. . . ." (ESV)

Thanks for reading. I know -- I'm supposed to be on hiatus, but it's my blog . . .

Travel hiatus coming

God willing, we will be traveling soon. I don't expect to post much, except, perhaps, a Sunspots or two, and another hymn of Charles Wesley, for the next several days.

The origin of humans (and a little about the meanings of "evolution")

I have recently discovered a pretty good attempt to differentiate among the meanings of evolution, by Steve Martin, of "An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution," and I commend it to you. I also have a web page that tries to do this. We say some of the same things, but there are differences. I have recently updated this web page, which has been on-line, with occasional updates, for a few years.

The main reason that I have updated, is because I decided that I didn't say enough about the origin of human beings. (Steve Martin doesn't deal with this much, either) If human beings came from some other type of organism through an evolutionary process, there is no good reason to suppose that there was anything special about this, any more than, say, the apparent descent of zebras and horses from a common ancestor would have been by a unique process, so there's a good reason for leaving it out of a discussion of the types of evolution -- it's not a unique type, if it happened. But the response of many Christians to the suggestion that humans may have evolved from some pre-human animal requires some discussion, in my view.

Why is there so often a response to the possibility that humans have evolved? There seem to be several answers, the most obvious being that we are human, and may not want to know anything "bad" about our origins, just as we might not want to know that we had an axe murderer in our family tree. (I don't see that origin from some non-human type, if it really occurred as God's way of producing us, should be considered a bad thing.)

Another answer is that the Bible indicates that the origin of humans was special. Genesis 1 and 2 do not describe the origin of any other species in detail, but the origin of humans is detailed. The process is described in such a way that, if it was meant to be taken literally, it leaves no room for an evolutionary process in human origin. The origin of humans is not only described, but we are also the only beings described as being in God's image, whatever that means, and as having some sort of control and responsibility for other living things.

It is also true, of course, that the Bible tells us that Christ came as a human, miraculously becoming a God-man. This, too, indicates that humans are special.

So it is no wonder that many Christians have a very hard time believing that humans came from some non-human species.

I'm not sure how to take Genesis on the origin of humans. I don't know enough of the original language. There are those who do know it, and believe that the Bible is God's word, divinely inspired, but disagree with one another about how literally to take the first part of Genesis. It doesn't seem likely that I can determine this issue in this life.

The Bible doesn't seem to allow for any doubt that God was involved in the origin of humans, however and whenever it came about. We are here because of God's purposes.

It is, of course, possible that other organisms came to be as they are through evolutionary processes, but that humans were specially created, as described in Genesis.

However humans came about, it seems clear that they have changed ("evolved," if you please, in one meaning of the word) since the first humans. Taken literally, Genesis teaches that the various races of humans all sprang from Noah's family, and there are differences between races. (These differences are insignificant, compared to the similarities!) Even to a young-earth creationist, who might be supposed to doubt that humans have been subject to evolutionary processes more than others, these differences must have come about in the few thousand years since Noah's flood. I have never read a scientifically informed young-earth creationist who doubted that natural selection, Darwin's main mechanism, works, or that it has worked in humans, at least since the flood. A person who believes that the earth, and humans, are more than a few thousand years old, will also accept that humans have changed since Homo sapiens first appeared.

Some Christians believe that the first part of Genesis was not meant to be taken strictly literally, and some of these Christians are willing to believe that God used some sort of evolutionary process to bring about the existence of humans here on earth. Billy Graham, for one, is on record as saying that this may have been true. Note that he doesn't say that it is true, but that it might be. I'll give Graham the last word:
". . . whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man's relationship to God."

Thanks for reading!

Sunspots 132

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

Humor:
Seen on a tee-shirt: "I'd put something clever here, but you wouldn't get it."

Politics:
This is an old article, but I hadn't seen it: ABC TV on US torture techniques. Waterboarding was administered to CIA officers, who asked for relief after an average of 14 seconds. Bad information was given by some prisoners, and formed the basis for US action. Some prisoners have died under torture.

Music:
Slate on how to tell the difference between Haydn and Mozart.

Computing:
Somebody or other puts out a Daily Bible Verse feed, which you can add to various types of blogs/MySpace pages, etc.

Literature:
I just found Keith P. Graham's suggested "Laws of Science Fiction Writing," apparently posted in 2005. Interesting and provocative! It includes some laws for fantasy, too.

Christianity:
A well-written review of a book on how Christians are perceived by young adults in the U. S. (Not very well).

Bonnie clarifies hypocrisy .



This week's Christian Carnival is here. For information on these Carnivals, go here.

Thanks for reading! Keep clicking away.

Image source (public domain)

The Golden Compass by Philip Pullman

The Golden Compass is an upcoming movie, based on a book by Philip Pullman.

There is apparently an e-mail campaign, aimed at telling Christians not to see this movie. I have received such e-mails a couple of times, and will probably receive them again.

Here's my response:
Thanks for sending this on to me. I haven't seen the movie, but I know something about fantastic literature, and this author is, indeed, an outspoken atheist, and the movie (or movies -- it's a series of books) may be militantly atheistic. The book, although interesting and well-written, is anti-God, and anti-church.

There is a bigger problem. Most of the time, our modern media act as if God didn't exist (except for the so frequent "Oh, my God!" expressions). News programs and newspapers tell us about terrible disasters, seldom saying a word about praying for the victims. The accomplishments of athletes are praised, but the source of their God-given abilities is seldom mentioned. (No doubt people more knowledgeable than I could say something about popular music of many kinds right about here, but I won't.) Dramatic TV programs and movies tell us about what's important in fictional people's lives, and it's very seldom even close to a genuine belief in God. My wife and I saw a movie last week, which we found hilarious and enjoyable, and it was so inoffensive that it is rated PG-13. Christianity Today said that it was a family-oriented movie, and it is. But I don't remember a character who said a word about religious belief of any kind, Christian or otherwise, or about going to church.

It seems to me that this pervasive ignoring of the things of God is much more dangerous than occasional blatant atheism. We usually see blatant atheism, recognize it, and react to it, whereas, if we aren't careful, we absorb the attitude that God is non-existent or irrelevant from the world around us, including, of course, the media. We become practicing atheists.

Thanks for reading.

* * * * *

See here for another post on this topic.

See here for yet another such post, linking to material by Pullman, showing that he is, indeed, a militant atheist, and also showing that Pullman has actually undercut mainstream atheism, and that his sort of belief was predicted by C. S. Lewis, over sixty years ago.

How Happy Are They Servants, Lord, by Charles Wesley

This year is the 300th anniversary of Charles Wesley's birth. Wesley wrote many hymns. One that I have never heard is "How Happy Are Thy Servants, Lord." These are the words, posted by the Cyberhymnal:

How happy are Thy servants, Lord,
Who thus remember Thee!
What tongue can tell our sweet accord,
Our perfect harmony?

Who Thy mysterious supper share,
Here at Thy table fed,
Many, and yet but one we are,
One undivided bread.

One with the living bread divine
Which now by faith we eat,
Our hearts and minds and spirits join,
And all in Jesus meet.

So dear the tie where souls agree
In Jesus’ dying love!
Then only can it closer be,
When all are joined above.

These words were published in 1745, hence are public domain.

Thanks for reading.

County size in California vs. South Carolina

A little geography, gentle reader.

Much has been made of the recent fires in San Diego County and other California counties, and I certainly have no desire to complain about such coverage -- we have family members living there. However, perhaps some South Carolina readers, and other readers from the eastern US, may not realize that counties are not the same sorts of things in all parts of the US.

San Diego County has a large geographic area, namely 4,526 square miles/11,721 square kilometers. In contrast, the combined area of Pickens, Oconee, Greenville, Laurens, Abbeville, Greenwood, and Anderson counties of South Carolina is 4,436 square miles. San Diego County is not the largest county in the US, or in California. Counties in the western US tend to be larger. Although the population of San Diego County is nearly 3,000,000, which is the third largest population of any county in the US, much of the large area is relatively unpopulated. Many of the fires in that county are in such relatively unpopulated areas.

Some are warning that development of such areas is asking for trouble -- fires have apparently been part of the chaparral ecosystem for a long time, and the recently developed areas, left to themselves, would mostly be chaparral.

Just as the southeastern part of the US is subject to coastal hurricanes, and some parts of the US are at risk for earthquakes, some of the US is at risk for wildfires. There doesn't seem to be much that we can do about this. We live in a fallen world, and we humans are in tension with the communities where we live and move, and this tension will, if anything, become larger as we expect to own more and more possessions, and as there are more and more of us.

God help us all!

Thanks for reading.

Does God Exist? Tests of this hypothesis

I have recently read Does God Exist: The Debate between Theists and Atheists, by J. P. Moreland (a theist) Kai Neilsen (an atheist) and others. (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1993) The book is a record of such a debate, between these two, at the University of Mississippi, with various remarks by others. Although the book is not for the faint-hearted, as it delves into philosophy quite a bit, it is not written for philosophers, but, as the debate, was conducted so that intelligent persons (some university students and professors qualify) can follow the arguments.

Neither Neilsen nor Moreland claimed to have won decisively. My personal belief is that this is a matter for faith, although a believer can certainly find evidence for the existence of God. (I suppose that an atheist would find evidence for His non-existence, too.)

One part of the book is a brief chapter "The Choice of a Lifetime," (pp. 287-291) by Peter Kreeft.

Kreeft challenges readers to test the question of God's existence. He offers these four tests:
1) Test the lives of other people. "Find out what difference atheism or theism makes to people's lives, especially converts to both positions." (288)

2) Try to be an atheist for a day (or a Christian for a day), that is, if you are a Christian, try to be an atheist, or vice versa. Kreeft makes some suggestions on that. At first, I was mystified by this, but know that sometimes I am certainly tempted to doubt.

3) Think about Pascal's wager.

4) Pray. Kreeft suggests that an atheist ask God for help in seeking the truth of this most important question.

Interesting. Kreeft sounds like he has already made up his mind, and is a Christian, but others haven't.

Thanks for reading.

Does God Exist?

I recently read "Language, Being, God, and the Three Stages of Theistic Evidence," a chapter by Dallas Willard, in Does God Exist: The Debate between Theists & Atheists, by J. P. Moreland (a Christian) and Kai Nielsen (an atheist) with contributions by others. (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1993) Much of the book was a debate between the principal authors, at the University of Mississippi.

Willard's chapter is on pages 196-217. It is understandable, and well written, although Willard is an expert in philosophy, and uses this discipline throughout his contribution.

Willard doesn't claim that he has a knock-down argument for the existence of God, but he does say that it is a valid one, and he claims that the arguments for the non-existence of God are weak, at best.

Willard begins by saying that philosophically, there is a physical world, and that anything present in the physical world depends on something previous. If you go back far enough, there must have been something before the physical world itself. The Big Bang, he says, is not really an explanation -- it's an occurrence, which, like everything else, requires something previous. Some atheists endow the Big Bang with almost mystical properties. Willard says that this supports the first part of his argument.

Second, Willard says that order must come only from pre-existing order. However, he does not encourage arguments such as that sometimes made from the existence of intricate biological entities such as the eye.

Thirdly, Willard says that there must be a power acting in human affairs, hence, a God.

I repeat, Willard understands that he has not presented a knock-down argument for God, but he seems to have presented philosophical arguments that cast grave doubt on the philosophical arguments for atheism.

A convinced unbeliever doesn't usually want to pay attention to the evidence for belief. Sometimes such evidence is presently poorly, or material which isn't evidence is treated as if it were. I don't think Willard has done either of these.

Thanks for reading.

Sunspots 131

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

Science:
Fossil remains of a new, really big dinosaur have been discovered.

There are attacks by troops of Rhesus monkeys in India.

Politics:
Slate on what waterboarding is, why it should be illegal, and why the administration hasn't renounced it.


Literature:
A new interview with Harry Potter author J. K. Rowling, which considers the question of her faith.

Elizabeth Moon has a LiveJournal account. She has recently written on mercenaries (she is a former marine, and has written many fantastic novels about various aspects of warfare).

Christianity:
More on divorce from Christianity Today.



This week's Christian Carnival is here. For information on these Carnivals, go here .

Thanks for reading! Keep clicking away.

Image source (public domain)

Pray for Southern California, USA

This is Mt. San Miguel, in San Diego County, California, taken today.

This photo was taken by a relative who lives in San Diego County. It isn't the best quality ever, but it makes a point. You can get some idea of the height of those flames from the distance -- he was perhaps 4 miles/6 km away when he took the photo. (May have used the zoom function.) Radio stations, and public safety, have towers on this mountain. At least some of these have stopped functioning. Our relative may be evacuating soon.

People in Southern California need prayer. The Santa Ana winds are supposed to gust up to over 30 mph/40 kph today. The humidity is less than 5%. Over 250,000 people have been evacuated in San Diego County alone. Many roads are closed, because of the fires.

There are other fires in Southern California, too.

Thanks to another relative, for suggesting that I post this, and ask for prayer.

How Happy Every Child of Grace, by Charles Wesley

This year is the 300th anniversary of Charles Wesley's birth. Wesley wrote many hymns. One that I have never heard is "How Happy Every Child of Grace." I like the words. Here they are, as posted by the Cyberhymnal:

How happy every child of grace,
Who knows his sins forgiven!
“This earth,” he cries, “is not my place,
I seek my place in Heaven—
A country far from mortal sight,
Which yet by faith I see,
The land of rest, the saints’ delight,
The heaven prepared for me.”

O what a blessèd hope is ours!
While here on earth we stay,
We more than taste the heavenly powers,
And antedate that day.
We feel the resurrection near,
Our life in Christ concealed,
And with His glorious presence here
Our earthen vessels filled.

O would He more of heaven bestow,
And let the vessels break,
And let our ransomed spirits go
To grasp the God we seek;
In rapturous awe on Him to gaze,
Who bought the sight for me;
And shout and wonder at His grace
Through all eternity!

These words were published in 1745, hence are public domain.

Thanks for reading.

Polaris, by Jack McDevitt

I recently read Polaris, by Jack McDevitt. (This is McDevitt's web page.) Polaris was published in 2004 by Ace Books, of New York. McDevitt won the Nebula award for Seeker, a book with the same setting, and main characters, but later in time in McDevitt's sub-creation.

I don't usually give away the plots of books, but, in this case, I'm going to.

The Polaris was a spaceship, and it was used for a flight of a few important people. The purpose of the flight was to view the collision of a star with another object, from as close as safely possible. The Polaris was found, after the collision, but no passengers (nor the pilot) were ever found, in spite of a thorough search.

Alex Benedict, dealer in artifacts of various kinds, and his associate, Chase Kolpath (Chase is female) obtain some material from the Polaris, and become interested in what happened, 60 years after the disappearance. To cut to the chase (sorry!) they find out that the people aboard the Polaris are still alive.

There is an important ethical dilemma in this book. More than one, in fact. One is whether people who are convinced that overpopulation is a potential disaster have the right to take drastic action to prevent it. Another is whether, if a way to prolong human life tenfold is found, it is right to withhold that knowledge. Another is whether it is right to punish criminals with a "mindwipe," which involves removing their memories, and most of their personality, as opposed to sentencing them to death, or to life in prison. And the last one, which is raised in this, and two other of McDevitt's books about Alex Benedict (one of them may not have Chase Kolpath) is whether it's right to look for artifacts of the past for profit, as opposed to letting them be. (If there was no profit motive, would anyone ever look? Would any artifacts at all be preserved for the public? Should they be?) The answers to all of these questions are difficult, and McDevitt offers no easy answers.

McDevitt is a good writer. There is some real science in the book, and the characters seem real enough, too (even the avatars -- computer-generated constructs, based on what is known of an absent person, or a dead one). Much of the book is a murder mystery, or an attempted murder mystery. Someone has been trying to kill Benedict and Kolpath. Who is it, and why?

Even though Rimway, the planet Benedict and Kolpath are based on, is distant from earth, and it is a few millenia in our future, there is some minor recognition of God. ("God willing," for example, on page 119)

Thanks for reading.

Seeker, by Jack McDevitt

"Margolia is a world of gleaming cities and impossible architecture. Its citizens enjoy a life of absolute leisure. (How they'd stand it isn't explained.)" Jack McDevitt, Seeker. New York: Ace, 2006, p. 108.

Seeker won the Nebula award for 2006. I try to read all the Nebula award books. As usual, I'll try to avoid giving away the plot, but muse a bit about some aspects of the book.

This is McDevitt's web page. It includes chapter 14 of the book.

The front cover quotes Stephen King, on McDevitt: "The logical heir to Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke." In other words, King believes that the most important part of McDevitt's stories is the science. I generally prefer Ursula K. Le Guin's writing, where the most important part of the stories is the people. Clarke invented the synchronous orbiting relay satellite, fictionally. However, let's not forget that Le Guin, in spite of her concern for her characters, invented the ansible, also fictionally. Both are concerned with communication. McDevitt's people are OK. They are more than just cardboard. The protagonist in Seeker is Chase Kolpath, a former space pilot. She is now the assistant to Alex Benedict, who finds, or trades, valuable artifacts. I haven't read the previous books in this series, A Talent for War and Polaris, but I believe the first of these is written as a memoir by Alex. The second and third are written as if by Chase. She is more than a Watson to Alex's Holmes -- she has many of the adventures, and some of the ideas.

There are lots of possible artifacts in Chase's world, since it's about 9,000 years in our future, and humans are living on hundreds of planets. Rimway is the name of her planet. It has almost no crime. Criminals have their brains wiped -- their personality is mostly destroyed, and they are given, as it were, another start in life. Most everyone has an AI, an artificial intelligence, to deal with routine matters, even some non-routine ones. Simulated people take many of the service roles, such as restaurant waiters.

One question I always have, when entering such a world, is "how does the author treat religion?" McDevitt almost totally ignores it, but does include this:
It was a religious ceremony. A priest requested the blessings of the Almighty on the happy couple, and led them in their vows. The best man produced the ring, Adam slipped it on her finger, she waltzed into his arms, and they kissed. p. 77.

Who is getting married isn't important here. McDevitt does assume that there will be some religion, probably Christianity, even in the far future, and that it will have some importance in the lives of at least some people. That's more than many science fiction authors have done.

The quote also shows a weakness in McDevitt's work. Much of what people do and are, their customs and habits, read as if they haven't changed in hundreds of lightyears and thousands of years. That strikes me as very unrealistic. Surely the marriage ceremony would have changed a lot in that time! I know -- if McDevitt had changed everything as much as it's probably going to change, the plot would have gotten lost in all of those societal changes. And it's unrealistic to expect any author to be able to extrapolate changes in every aspect of how we eat, entertain ourselves, how we are named, etc., into the future.

God also appears in this famous quote (famous in the sense that it has been remembered for millennia, in McDevitt's fictional world):
We are leaving this world forever, and we intend to go so far that not even God will be able to find us. p. 133.

One technological extrapolation is avatars -- it is possible to take what is known about someone, even someone long dead, and produce a projected 3-D view of that person. The projection is able to converse, with ideas more or less like the original person would have, depending on how much is known about the original.

How do we treat the relics of our past? We plunder them, we hoard them, we exhibit them in museums, we profit from them, we show them off without understanding them, we casually trash them. That is a central theme of this book, and it is well worth thinking about.

McDevitt is a good read. I had a hard time putting the book down by the time I got to about page 250 (out of 373). There were two previous Chase Kolpath books, A Talent for War and Polaris. I hope to read them.

Thanks for reading.

Sunspots 130

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

Humor:
The terrorists must have followed us home, creating a massive art installation in Chicago.

Science:
A physician, writing in Slate, claims that we shouldn't be so obsessed with cleanliness, and, in fact, should ingest more excrement for our health's sake. (warning -- a common four-letter word for excrement is used several times in the article).

Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize. Although he apparently deserves it, for his work on raising awareness of the coming climate change, a UK judge has ruled that there should be reservations about using An Inconvenient Truth in schools, because he was making a case, not always completely backed by scientific evidence. For example, it is not clear that Hurricane Katrina was directly due to increased global warming.

Politics:
Factcheck assesses claims made by the President, by candidates for President, and probably others. It seems to want the truth from both US political parties, and points out when it wasn't forthcoming. The same seems to be true of PolitiFact.

Henry Neufeld proposes his anti-terrorism policy.

Music:
(Actually, Art, in this case) New discoveries about the Mona Lisa, by da Vinci.


Christianity:
An article in Christianity Today on the reasons that the Bible allows for divorce, based on a study of the original language, and its cultural context.

Bonnie argues that the church must teach about proper sexual relationships, not just about improper ones.

Rebecca argues that KJV-onlyism is not truly compatible with a Bible-based doctrine.

An article, written for the "average Christian," on "The Spiritual Value of Wilderness ."


I normally include a link to the current Christian Carnival, but, so far, I haven't discovered the latest one.

"The Inner Life of the Cell" video

"The Inner Life of the Cell" video, which, as I understand it, was created at Harvard, is available freely on the Internet, here, lasts perhaps 3 minutes, and is certainly well worth watching. It shows various animations of life processes involving molecules and cells, with no narration at all. Even if you don't know what process is being shown, it is an awesome piece of work, and gives some idea of the tremendous complexity and beauty of molecular and cellular structure. According to my sources, some people have used in devotional presentations. The sponsor, the Howard Hughes Medical Foundation, is not a religious organization.

Thanks for reading. Enjoy watching.

Stephen Hawking's singularity at the beginning

When people start using terms like singularity, my brain generally goes into neutral.

Stephen Hawking, one of the most famous scientists of our time (he holds the same professorial chair that Isaac Newton did, and appeared, as a holographic simulation of himself, on an episode of Star Trek: Voyager) wrote A Brief History of Time, a best-selling book (there are those who claim that not many who own the book have actually read and understood it!). In that book, he claimed, as I understood him, that the universe sort of started up by itself -- without a singularity, a special event, at the beginning.

I have recently read a chapter, "In Defense of Rational Theism," by William Lane Craig, in Does God Exist: The Debate between Theists & Atheists (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. J. P. Moreland and Kai Nielsen are given as senior authors. The chapter is pp. 139-161). As part of this chapter, Craig, a philosopher, criticizes Hawking's idea that there was no** singularity at the beginning of time. He states that Hawking was on questionable ground on two points, which, he says, are among Hawking's assumptions, not his facts:
1) He assumes that there must have been (be?) multiple universes*, in fact, all possible universes, but we only know about the one we are in now. Craig says that the reason for this particular part of Hawking's metaphysics is that quantum physics would suppose that there was indeterminacy in the universe to begin with, but it collapsed to one particular state, and this collapse -- which is related to the Big Bang, would have required some sort of observer, which, says Craig, quoting Hawking, "smacks of divine intervention," (p. 147 of Craig) which Hawking wanted to deny.

*Philip Pullman used this idea in his His Dark Materials series.
**On October 17th, I changed "of a" to "that there was no," after suddenly realizing that I had written the opposite of what I had wanted to say. Sigh. Thanks, Steve, for your comment. Without it, I wouldn't have noticed this.

2) Craig says that Hawking misused mathematics in his model, specifically that he uses imaginary numbers inappropriately.

I am not equipped to evaluate Craig's claims, but, at least in part, they make sense. Hawking starts out, apparently, by not believing that there is a supernatural God who began the universe. So it is no wonder that he comes out "proving" this! Hebrews 11:3 says that we understand God's work in creation by faith. Hawking seems to have a different sort of faith. (See also this post.)

Thanks for reading.

Three by Sharon Shinn

Sharon Shinn is a writer of fantastic literature, who always has an element of romance (in the sense of a man and woman falling in love) in her novels. Although she has never won the highest awards given in the field, she's good enough to enjoy. Let's put it this way -- my wife, who almost never likes fantastic literature, has enjoyed one of Shinn's books, Summers at Castle Auburn. She also enjoyed, as I did, a trio of so-called Young Adult books by Shinn. These books are The Truth-Teller's Tale (2005), The Safe-Keeper's Secret (2004) and The Dream-Maker's Magic (2006). There is a fourth story, "Wintermoon Wish," with the same premises and setting. That story is in the anthology Firebirds Rising.

As usual, I won't give away the plot, but I will muse briefly about some of the aspects of these books.

All three involve young teenagers growing up. These are more female than male, but male characters are important. One of the books features twin girls, and one has a main character whose mother treats her as if she were a boy -- she isn't. (Shinn's story explains the reasons.)

The world of these books has magic in it. In particular, there are Safe-Keepers, Truth-Tellers, and Dream-Makers. Safe-Keepers are safe listeners for secrets. They don't tell even the most awful things, unless telling would be all right with the originator of the secret, or that person has died. They may pass secrets on to other Safe-Keepers, especially if they are afraid that they will die soon.

Truth-Tellers, on the contrary, always tell the truth, and this includes things that they don't have personal knowledge of. For example, you could ask a Truth-Teller who committed a crime, and he or she would usually respond by naming the guilty party. Truth-Tellers, of course, aren't always popular. Like Safe-Keepers, there may be more than one such person in the kingdom at once. Both Truth-Tellers and Safe-Keepers gradually come to realize their specialness, and those around them do, too, as they grow up.

One of Shinn's nice touches is inventing a tree that goes with each of these. Kirrenberry trees are for Safe-Keepers. They make no noise. Their leaves don't rustle, and, if you make a whistle out of a twig from such a tree, it won't make any music. Chatterleaf trees are noisy, and they are often planted at the homes of Truth-Tellers. Their leaves, of course, are noisy.

There is only one Dream-Maker in the kingdom at a time, and Dream-Making is difficult. Only people who have endured great suffering become Dream-Makers, and being Dream-Maker is an emotional burden. Their special gift is to make some people's wishes come true. They don't control this. Wishes of people who have told the Dream-Maker what their wish is may come true. If so, it is some time after the contact with the Dream-Maker.

The three books, as I say, all take place in the same setting. They are also related, in that characters from one book may be mentioned a little in another one, but the books may be read independently.

There is little or no religion in the books, except for rituals associated with mid-winter and mid-summer. However, both my wife and I were struck by the fact that Jesus Christ is Truth-Teller, Safe-Keeper, and Dream-Maker. Sometimes the Truth that He tells is uncomfortable and unwelcome. We can confess anything we have done to Him without fear. He makes some of our dreams come true.

Thanks for reading.

O Love Divine, What Hast Thou Done, by Charles Wesley

This year is the 300th anniversary of Charles Wesley's birth. Wesley wrote many hymns. One that I have seldom heard is "O Love Divine, What Hast Thou Done." It has great words. These are the words posted by the Cyberhymnal:

O Love divine, what hast thou done!
The immortal God hath died for me!
The Father’s co-eternal Son
Bore all my sins upon the tree.
Th’immortal God for me hath died:
My Lord, my Love, is crucified!

Is crucified for me and you,
To bring us rebels back to God.
Believe, believe the record true,
Ye all are bought with Jesus’ blood.
Pardon for all flows from His side:
My Lord, my Love, is crucified!

Behold and love, ye that pass by,
The bleeding Prince of life and peace!
Come, sinners, see your Savior die,
And say, “Was ever grief like His?”
Come, feel with me His blood applied:
My Lord, my Love, is crucified!

Then let us sit beneath His cross,
And gladly catch the healing stream:
All things for Him account but loss,
And give up all our hearts to Him:
Of nothing think or speak beside,
My Lord, my Love, is crucified!

These words were published in 1742, hence are public domain.

Thanks for reading.

Sunspots 129

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

Humor:

Science:
According to the Wikipedia, goldenrod (which is blooming everywhere in the area where we live) causes little or no hay fever, because its pollen is so "heavy and sticky" that it doesn't blow around very much.

From Montana State Univ., a web site to help in identifying all the butterflies and moths in North America.

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine has been awarded to three mouse geneticists .

Politics:
(or something) How Wal-Mart is getting people to buy compact flourescent light bulbs.

Music:
(actually, art) Slate on small children and elephants painting, and on what art is.



This week's Christian Carnival is here . For information on these Carnivals, go here .

Thanks for reading! Keep clicking away.

Image source (public domain)

Soldiers of Christ, Arise by Charles Wesley

This year is the 300th anniversary of Charles Wesley's birth. Wesley wrote many hymns. One that I have seldom heard is "Soldiers of Christ, Arise." These are the words posted by the Cyberhymnal:

Soldiers of Christ, arise, and put your armor on,
Strong in the strength which God supplies through His eternal Son.
Strong in the Lord of hosts, and in His mighty power,
Who in the strength of Jesus trusts is more than conqueror.

Stand then in His great might, with all His strength endued,
But take, to arm you for the fight, the panoply of God;
That, having all things done, and all your conflicts passed,
Ye may o’ercome through Christ alone and stand entire at last.

Stand then against your foes, in close and firm array;
Legions of wily fiends oppose throughout the evil day.
But meet the sons of night, and mock their vain design,
Armed in the arms of heavenly light, of righteousness divine.

Leave no unguarded place, no weakness of the soul,
Take every virtue, every grace, and fortify the whole;
Indissolubly joined, to battle all proceed;
But arm yourselves with all the mind that was in Christ, your Head.

But, above all, lay hold on faith’s victorious shield;
Armed with that adamant and gold, be sure to win the field:
If faith surround your heart, Satan shall be subdued,
Repelled his every fiery dart, and quenched with Jesu’s blood.

Jesus hath died for you! What can His love withstand?
Believe, hold fast your shield, and who shall pluck you from His hand?
Believe that Jesus reigns; all power to Him is giv’n:
Believe, till freed from sin’s remains; believe yourselves to Heav’n.

To keep your armor bright, attend with constant care,
Still walking in your Captain’s sight, and watching unto prayer.
Ready for all alarms, steadfastly set your face,
And always exercise your arms, and use your every grace.

Pray without ceasing, pray, your Captain gives the word;
His summons cheerfully obey and call upon the Lord;
To God your every want in instant prayer display,
Pray always; pray and never faint; pray, without ceasing, pray!

In fellowship alone, to God with faith draw near;
Approach His courts, besiege His throne with all the powers of prayer:
Go to His temple, go, nor from His altar move;
Let every house His worship know, and every heart His love.

To God your spirits dart, your souls in words declare,
Or groan, to Him Who reads the heart, the unutterable prayer:
His mercy now implore, and now show forth His praise,
In shouts, or silent awe, adore His miracles of grace.

Pour out your souls to God, and bow them with your knees,
And spread your hearts and hands abroad, and pray for Zion’s peace;
Your guides and brethren bear for ever on your mind;
Extend the arms of mighty prayer, ingrasping* all mankind.

From strength to strength go on, wrestle and fight and pray,
Tread all the powers of darkness down and win the well fought day.
Still let the Spirit cry in all His soldiers, “Come!”
Till Christ the Lord descends from high and takes the conquerors home.

These words were written by Wesley in about 1741.

*This word is new to me. I assume that it means what you would suppose that it did -- surrounding and containing.

Thanks for reading.

Sunspots 128

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

Humor: The Onion on fig newton ads.

The Onion on a remarkable development in Vice President Dick Cheney's attitude.

Science: (or something) I read, in the latest American Bible Society Record, that there are new languages appearing. They mentioned two: a new combination of Arabic and French, and a Polish-related street gang language. Bible translations are being prepared in both of these, and many others.

"California State University Professor Mike Orkin points out that if a person drives ten miles to buy a [lottery] ticket, he or she is about sixteen times more likely to get killed in a car crash on the way than to win the jackpot." Sean B. Carroll, The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution . New York: Norton, 2006. pp.41-2

Politics: An "Issue Tracker" from the Washington Post. The web page lists 17 major party presidential candidates, and has links to press coverage on the issues. If, for example, you want to know how Sam Brownback and the budget have been covered, or made the news, you can click on Brownback, then on the Economy and Budget issue category. If, on the other hand, you want to know who has received news coverage because of their stand on the environment, you move the mouse over Environment, and see that, currently, Duncan Hunter has received no news coverage about that, and Hilary Clinton has seen the most. The page, it says, can be added to your own web page or MySpace page. You can go to the candidate's official web sites (which usually, or always) have something about their positions on various issues, by clicking on this related page.

Can you name more than four members of the U. S. President's Cabinet? (Apparently even the White House webmaster can't name all of them . . .) I got four of them.

Computing: C-Net on how the bad people use information on social networks like MySpace, FaceBook, or LinkedIn to attack corporations, or even governments. This phenomenon is known as Spear Phishing.

Christianity: On the use of words for "up" and "down" in the book of Jonah. This week's Christian Carnival is here. For information on these Carnivals, go here.

Thanks for reading! Keep clicking away.

Image source (public domain)

I Know That My Redeemer Lives, by Charles Wesley

This year is the 300th anniversary of Charles Wesley's birth. Wesley wrote many hymns. One that is still familiar is "I Know That My Redeemer Lives," usually sung to music by Handel. These are the words posted by the Cyberhymnal:

I know that my Redeemer lives,
And ever prays for me;
A token of His love He gives,
A pledge of liberty.

I find him lifting up my head,
He brings salvation near,
His presence makes me free indeed,
And He will soon appear.

He wills that I should holy be,
What can withstand His will?
The counsel of His grace in me
He surely shall fulfill.

Jesus, I hang upon Thy Word;
I steadfastly believe
Thou wilt return and claim me, Lord
And to Thyself receive,

Joyful in hope, my spirit soars
To meet Thee from above,
Thy goodness thankfully adores;
And sure I taste Thy love.

Thy love I soon expect to find,
In all its depth and height;
To comprehend the eternal mind,
And grasp the Infinite.

When God is Mine and I am His,
Of paradise possessed,
I taste unutterable bliss,
And everlasting rest.

The bliss of those that fully dwell,
Fully in Thee believe,
’Tis more than angel tongues can tell,
Or angel minds conceive.

Thou only knowst, who didst obtain,
And die to make it known;
The great salvation now explain,
And perfect us in one!

As the hymn was written 1742, it is public domain.

Thanks for reading.

Billy Graham on origins

Billy Graham is not necessarily divinely inspired, of course, but his views have been widely respected, and rightly so. I was led to a passage where he was asked his views on origins.

David Frost says that he wished to know how Billy Graham interpreted scripture, and what he thought of evolution. Graham responded that he didn't think anyone could be an absolutely strict literalist, and gave the example of Lazarus, who couldn't have been in Abraham's bosom. Then Graham went on to say this:
Oh, I don't think that there's any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we've tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren't meant to say, and I think we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book.
The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or this being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man.

Frost asked a further question, and Graham indicated that he hadn't finished his response to the previous one. Graham went on:
. . . I personally believe that it's just as easy to accept the fact that God took some dust and blew on it and out came a man as it is to accept the fact that God breathed upon man and he became a living soul and it started with some protoplasm and went right on up through the evolutionary process. Either way is by faith and whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man's relationship to God.
Billy Graham: Personal Thoughts of a Public Man, 1997. (Colorado Springs, Colorado: Cook Communications, 1997. p. 72-74) The book indicates that this is taken from the transcript of an interview of Graham by Frost on BBC-2, in 1964. Frost is given as the author of the book, which is said to be excerpts from interviews with Graham over three decades. The first one was in 1964, and may have been the interview above.

I plan no posts, except maybe a Sunspots, and a Charles Wesley Hymn, over the next couple of weeks, because of travel and church responsibilities.

Thanks for reading.

* * * *

October 14, 2007: I have just discovered a post by Steve Martin, entitled "Made in God's Image or Evolved from Apes?" which is related to the quotations from Billy Graham (but makes no mention of Graham).

Extraterrestrial Religion

Are there planets where there is life? Is such life self-aware, and/or able to communicate ideas to others? Are there religions on other planets? I wish to muse about these things. (I recently mused about a similar topic, namely the religion of robots.)

Some authors have supposed that there is such life on planets in our own solar system.

C. S. Lewis, in Out of the Silent Planet, the first novel of his space trilogy, described Mars (Malacandra) as a planet with water, and life, in canals on the planet's surface. There were three intelligent species living there, all three worshiping the Oyarsa of Mars, approximately an archangel. They had some knowledge of Maleldil, Christ, and his redeeming sacrifice. Lewis also supposed that Venus (Perelandra) was inhabited by an intelligent race, human in appearance, who were subjected to a temptation similar to that described of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

At least one author, Zenna Henderson (see also the Wikipedia page on her) had her aliens, who were indistinguishable from humans in appearance, living on earth, among us, but with a religion that was central to their culture. This religion seemed to be compatible with Christianity.

Harold Myra supposed that the Fall had made our part of the universe into antimatter. He had several unfallen worlds in his galaxy.

Dolphins, chimpanzees, and perhaps other terrestrial species may be self-aware, and have some power of communication, enough to develop a religion, perhaps. So far as I know, there is no evidence that they have such. There are a number of works that suppose dolphins or whales to have such capacity. I am not aware that any of them propose that these creatures have any religion.

Other authors have also considered these themes.

Does the Bible say anything that would preclude intelligent life elsewhere? I don't know of any such thing. Conversely, it doesn't say anything that proves that there is such life.

If there is intelligent life elsewhere, is it necessary that it have a religion? I suppose not, but would be surprised if there were no such, if other species with intelligence exist.

Did the Fall affect other planets? Did Christ die for other planets? Probably, as I read the scripture, although I don't think the Bible is absolutely conclusive on these matters. Romans 8:18-25 may mean that when it says that the "whole creation" has suffered until the time of Paul's writing.

Thanks for reading these musings.

*  *  *  *  *

Note added June 23, 2011: A recent post by a Christian author of fantastic literature claims that there can be no non-human intelligent life in the universe. Some other Christian authors disagree, in the comments.

*  *  *  *  *

Added November 11, 2012: Ken Ham, of Answers in Genesis, claims that, if there is intelligent life on other planets, "any aliens would also be affected by Adam’s sin, but they can’t have salvation." Ham is responding to statements by a Vatican astronomer, to the contrary. That is, the astronomer claimed that intelligent extraterrestrials could be redeemed.

*  *  *  *  * 

Added July 27, 2015: A planet with physical characteristics similar to ours has recently been discovered. In response, apparently an atheist wrote that this discovery made belief in God (or in Judaism or Islam) impossible. Benjamin L. Corey begs to differ.

Sunspots 127

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

Science:
Velociraptor, the predatory dinosaur, seems to have had feathers.

An excellent post on what design means.

Politics:
I saw former President Clinton interviewed on the Comedy Channel last week. He wasn't being funny when he put forward an interesting thesis on the nastiness in Washington: Congress is sleep-deprived. Many of them fly to their home districts and back every weekend during Congressional sessions, and the result is that they don't get enough sleep, and that some of them are chronically jet-lagged. No wonder they are grumpy. Clinton is on to something, no doubt.

Computing:
Version 2.3 of OpenOffice is available, for those interested, which might well include those who can't afford Microsoft Office, or who choose not to use it, but still need one or more of a word processor, spreadsheet, drawing program, presentation program. It is freeware -- there's no charge for it.

OSHA, a US government agency has advice on monitor placement, so as to avoid eyestrain.




This week's Christian Carnival is here. For information on these Carnivals, go here.

Thanks for reading! Keep clicking away.

Sodom and homosexuality

The story of the destruction of Sodom is told in Genesis 18:16 - 19:29. It is not a pretty story. God sent two angels to the city. They spent the night with Lot, Abraham's nephew. While they were there, all of the men of the city surrounded Lot's house, and demanded that he send out his guests (they, and Lot, thought that the angels were males) so that they could rape them. The next day, the angels took Lot and his family out of the city, and it was destroyed.

It is often stated that Sodom (and its neighboring city, Gomorrah) was destroyed because of its homosexual sin. It is also implied that homosexuality is the worst possible sin. That's not consistent with what the Bible has to say. Here's what Ezekiel said about Sodom:

16:48 As I live, declares the Lord God, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. 49 Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it. (ESV)

Ezekiel listed pride, gluttony, and sloth, and inhospitality, and doesn't directly refer to homosexuality (unless the "did an abomination" refers to that.) Ezekiel also said that the Jews were worse than Sodom. (they "have not done" as the Jews did.)

Jude 1:7 does refer to homosexuality:
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire*, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. *text note: Greek other flesh (ESV)

But that can't be taken to make homosexuality the worst sin. Christ, Himself, said, in Matthew 11:20-24, when Capernaum rejected His teaching, that they were worse than the inhabitants of ancient Sodom, and, in Luke 10:1-12, that any town that did not receive the seventy-two disciples, was worse than Sodom.

Pride, according to Ezekiel, was the besetting sin of the inhabitants of Sodom. Here's what John Calvin said about that, in his commentary on this passage: ". . . but we must see how Sodom rushed forward to that degree of licentiousness so as to be horrified by no enormity. God says that they began by pride, and surely pride is the mother of all contempt of God and of all cruelty."

I conclude, therefore, that homosexual behavior is not the worst sin, now, nor was it in Sodom's day. Putting ourselves pridefully up as gods probably is.

For more on this topic, see the last part of this post, from Parableman.

Article on social networks

There's a thoughtful article in The New Atlantis about social networks, mostly MySpace and FaceBook.

As the author concludes: "Social networking websites may make relationships more reliable, but whether those relationships can be humanly satisfying remains to be seen."

This blog isn't part of a social network, or, if it is, it's a small network that's seldom used. Some blogs, using Blogger, or similar services, are more so. Nonetheless, I am always grateful when anyone comments on a post.

Thanks for reading, whoever you are (if you are anyone!).

Give Me a New, A Perfect Heart by Charles Wesley

This is the 300th anniversary of the birth of Charles Wesley. The Cyberhymnal has posted over 100 hymns by him. I had never heard this one, but it is on a theme which was central to the message of John and Charles Wesley.

Give me a new, a perfect heart,
From doubt, and fear, and sorrow free;
The mind which was in Christ impart,
And let my spirit cleave to Thee.

O take this heart of stone away!
Thy sway it doth not, cannot own;
In me no longer let it stay;
O take away this heart of stone!

Cause me to walk in Christ my Way;
And I Thy statutes shall fulfill,
In every point Thy law obey,
And perfectly perform Thy will.

Within me Thy good Spirit place,
Spirit of health, and love, and power;
Plant in me Thy victorious grace,
And sin shall never enter more.

O that I now, from sin released,
Thy Word may to the utmost prove!
Enter into the promised rest,
The Canaan of Thy perfect love.

Now let me gain perfection’s height;
Now let me into nothing fall,
Be less than nothing in Thy sight,
And feel that Christ is all in all.

The original, which was written in 1742, and hence is in the public domain, had 28 verses. I believe that this poem could be sung to familiar tunes such as "Old Hundredth," or "Duke Street," which have 8.8.8.8 meter.

DNA evidence in murder trials, but not in origins?

DNA contains, therefore, the ultimate forensic record of evolution.
This presents an interesting irony. Juries and judges are relying on DNA evidence to determine the liberty or incarceration, and life or death, of thousands of individuals. And it appears that citizens in the United States are 100 percent supportive of this development. Yet, in the court of public opinion, some 50 percent or more of the U.S. population still doubt or outright deny the reality of biological evolution. We are clearly more comfortable with DNA's applications than with its implications. Sean B. Carroll, The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution. New York: Norton, 2006. (p. 14)

I have begun reading the book indicated. Carroll's thesis seems to be as indicated by the quotation.

He is, clearly, on to something, but it isn't quite that simple. In the most famous murder case involving DNA evidence (that of O. J. Simpson) there was little question about the evidence, but the interpretation of the evidence was questioned, so much that the jury acquitted Simpson. In other words, his DNA was there. The question was "how did it get there?" (I claim no expertise as to what really happened -- I just want to make a point.)

Even if the evidence that humans share a great deal of our DNA with other primates, or some of it with, say, soybeans, is pretty compelling (and it seems to be) it is possible to suppose other explanations than a common descent. How plausible these explanations are is the question, of course.

Thanks for reading.

Select your Candidate

Someone sent me a link to a web site that takes your opinions and matches them to those of the Republican and Democratic candidates for President of the United States. The web site, which seems to be from some TV station, is based on a tool from Minnesota Public Radio.

It's interesting, but it has several flaws.

1) There aren't any candidates from other parties. Some of them, I suppose, have just as much chance as some of the many current Democratic and Republican candidates, all of whom (I think!) are included.

2) Some issues aren't included. I missed these:
Funding Social Security and Medicare
Fixing the nation's infrastructure
Bringing down the deficit, and the national debt
Doing something serious about global warming (there was an item about ethanol, but I understand that it takes more fossil fuel to produce ethanol than it replaces)
Public transportation
The boundaries (if any) of Presidential power
Toning down the level of partisanship in US politics
A military draft

3) It assumes (I guess) that people vote solely based on issues. Some people are likely to vote for or against Obama and Clinton because of their race or sex, with little regard for their stands on the issues, I think. And some of us will (I hope) vote based on our perception of the person's character. We (for example) suspect candidate X of changing opinions so as to court votes, or like McCain's integrity (or stubbornness), or don't trust a candidate who has been divorced.

Nonetheless, it was interesting, and only took a couple of minutes.

Thanks for reading.

C. S. Lewis on how to read as a literary critic

To enjoy our full humanity we ought, so far as is possible, to contain within us potentially at all times, and on occasion to actualize, all the modes of feeling and thinking through which man has passed. You must, so far as in you lies, become an Achaean chief while reading Homer, a medieval knight while reading Malory, and an eighteenth century Londoner while reading Johnson. Only thus will you be able to judge the work 'in the same spirit that its author writ' and to avoid chimerical criticism. C. S. Lewis, A Preface to Paradise Lost, p. 64. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964) The book is criticism (mainly positive) of John Milton's work.

Interesting. I wonder if Lewis had thought of fantastic literature, not just literature from the past, when he wrote this? (The book was originally published in 1942, and I don't believe Lewis had written any fantastic literature at the time, and I'm not sure that he had heard Tolkien reading any of his aloud, either, at that point.) The book is dedicated to Charles Williams, because of his own analysis of Paradise Lost, but Lewis had read at least one, and probably more of the novels by Williams, which are, I believe, somewhat fantastic. I tried reading one of them once, but couldn't get into it.

By his logic, then, you would need to become, as far as possible, a rabbit to criticize Watership Down fairly, or a hobbit to criticize Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. And, perhaps, a talking animal or a faun to criticize Lewis's own Narnia books. Good authors help us to do just this, I think. No doubt there are a few million people, some of them older than Rowling, who have temporarily become students at Hogwarts, for example. The hard part would be to fairly criticize an author who doesn't do that for us. For some people, apparently no author of fantastic literature draws them in in this way. I guess they shouldn't criticize it, then, according to Lewis. As usual, he was on to something.

Thanks for reading.

Sunspots 126

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

Humor:
(or something) See the latest in fancy fake eyelashes.

Science:
The Human Genome Project has published educational materials on genetics.

A thought-provoking post on a blog I hadn't heard of, but plan to explore, entitled "An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution."

Sports:
A high school football game had to be postponed because someone stole copper wire connected to the lights. What times we live in.

Philosophy:
He Lives offers definitions of philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism.


This week's Christian Carnival is here. For information on these Carnivals, go here.

Thanks for reading! Keep clicking away.

Image source (public domain)

Is calling a Bible translation a "Perversion" blasphemy?

I have previously posted on Kent Hovind, here and here. I have been mostly critical of him, and I'm not alone in this. Some of the criticism comes from a leading Young-Earth Creationism organization, Answers in Genesis.* Hovind spoke in many churches, on young-earth creationism, and his group has produced several videos on this subject.

*Correction, September 19, 2007. See the comment below. A more correct statement would be "came from." Here's a direct link to a detailed criticism of Hovind by three prominent young-earth creationists.

I encountered Mr. Hovind again recently. I was using the Blueletter Bible, an excellent reference, which has, among other things, several Bible versions which can be compared, Hebrew and Greek text, and links to various commentaries. I was preparing to teach a Sunday School class on the Fall, and noted that a video by Hovind was included in the list of commentaries. (The particular tape was the 2nd one in the list on the page, and shows Hovind presenting a seminar at a church in California.) I didn't watch all of this video. There were reasons why I didn't.

A few minutes into the presentation, Hovind, who is a young-earth creationist, made light of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Bible. (Hovind says that he uses the King James Version, but looks at what other versions say.) He called the RSV the Reversed Standard Perversion. I was offended by that. He was taking issue with the translation of Genesis 1, which, he said, was favorable to the gap theory, which he opposes. He gave some Biblical reasons for this opposition, and it is possible that the opposition is valid. I didn't appreciate his attitude.

No doubt, the RSV has its problems. There is no perfect translation of the Bible, and there may be legitimate reasons to question the treatment of various passages in the RSV. But to call a version a "Perversion?" That strikes me as dangerous, and bordering on blasphemy. It probably isn't, but it seems close.

In Matthew 12:31-32, Mark 3:28-29, and Luke 12:8-10, Jesus said that His Jewish opponents were committing a sin of blasphemy that could not be pardoned, when they accused Jesus of serving Satan, instead of God. I don't guess Hovind did that, but I suppose that many people have been inspired, and even brought to conversion, through the RSV, and it strikes me as a dangerous and irreverent thing to ridicule that translation.

The Blueletter Bible offers the RSV as one of its versions. I don't know if they are aware of what Hovind had to say about it.

A few minutes later, Hovind said, correctly, that language has changed. He gave the example of "cool," which, as he said, used to mean "not hot," and now, as he said, we aren't sure what it means. Yes, language does change. So why make a Bible translation that was made nearly 400 years ago your main translation?

My second objection was to his sources. Hovind seldom, or never, used scientific literature in dealing with supposed scientific discoveries, such as the claim that humans used to be larger than they are now. He used newspaper articles, instead. Newspaper articles may impart correct information, but they are not refereed like scientific papers. I suspect strongly that there were no credible scientific sources for many of his ideas. (And most of them, as far as I can tell, are not central to his main thesis, namely that the earth is but a few thousand years old. They are peripheral.)

I'm sorry, but this video gave me two more reasons to criticize Mr. Hovind.

Thanks for reading.

Congratulations, Phoenix Mercury

The Phoenix Mercury handily defeated the Detroit Shock yesterday, the first Women's National Basketball Association (WNBA) team ever to win a championship on their opponent's floor. They only used 8 players. It was a team effort, but Cappy Pondexter deserved, and got, the Most Valuable Player award. Pondexter thanked God and her teammates.

The Mercury played good defense, and were better shots, among other things. The team made 29 of 30 free throws, and shot over 52% from the field. Tangela Smith made all 4 of her shots from the field. The other players, Diana Taurasi, Penny Tayor, Kelly Miller, Belinda Snell, Kelly Mazzante, and Kelly Schumacher, also played well. (I guess the Mercury had too many Kellys for the Schock!) The Mercury had 9 turnovers, compared to 17 for the Shock. Six of their players scored 10 or more. A team effort, indeed.

Paul Westhead becomes the first person to win both an NBA and a WNBA championship as head coach. Both he, and the Shock's coach, Bill Laimbeer, are said to want other jobs. In Laimbeer's case, an NBA head coaching job. If Laimbeer gets such a job, I hope that he brings his female assistant, Cheryl Reeve, with him to the NBA. She seems to have expertise, and is respected by Laimbeer, the players, and the media. If men can coach women, and do a good job at it, why can't women coach men?

Thanks for reading.

Forth in Thy Name, O Lord by Charles Wesley

This year is the 300th anniversary of Charles Wesley's birth.

Here is a hymn, which I have never heard, but with good words, from over 100 by Wesley posted by the Cyberhymnal:

Forth in Thy Name, O Lord, I go,
My daily labor to pursue;
Thee, only Thee, resolved to know
In all I think or speak or do.

The task Thy wisdom hath assigned,
O let me cheerfully fulfill;
In all my works Thy presence find,
And prove Thy good and perfect will.

Preserve me from my calling’s snare,
And hide my simple heart above,
Above the thorns of choking care,
The gilded baits of worldly love.

Thee may I set at my right hand,
Whose eyes mine inmost substance see,
And labor on at Thy command,
And offer all my works to Thee.

Give me to bear Thy easy yoke,
And every moment watch and pray,
And still to things eternal look,
And hasten to Thy glorious day.

For Thee delightfully employ
Whate’er Thy bounteous grace hath giv’n;
And run my course with even joy,
And closely walk with Thee to Heav’n.

This hymn was written in 1749, and is, therefore, in the public domain.

Thanks for reading!

Marriage and divorce at Hogwarts

In an earlier post, I commented briefly that no one at Hogwarts, the school where Harry Potter was trained as a wizard, seemed to be married. All the professors, or teachers, were single. Can anyone think of an exception? True, Hagrid had a courtship with a giantess, but didn't marry her. Also, Remus Lupin married after he was a professor. But no professor was professor while married, as far as I can recall.

It's not that Hogwarts is immune to physical attraction. There is plenty of that among the students.

It's not that J. K. Rowling didn't include married couples in the Harry Potter books. She did. The Dursleys, and Harry Potter's parents, both seemed not only married, but in love. Mr. and Mrs. Weasley are important characters, and they are married, and in love.

One thing that Rowling doesn't seem to have included is divorce. There is no mention of divorce among wizards, nor even among muggles (non-wizards). That's remarkable! Probably Rowling's own status as a single mother influenced this aspect of the book, but I'm not at all sure that it was the determining factor. The Dursleys, and the Weasleys, have some disagreements, but that's realistic. Would that wizardly influence, or good choices, would stamp out divorce in our real society.

On an unrelated topic, why do Rowling's wizards travel over much of the Old World, but they are not mentioned as being in the Western Hemisphere?

Thanks for reading.

I re-analyzed the Harry Potter series, in a post in early 2015, here.