After a moment Saul looked up at the ceiling.
Oh, I know you, Ado-Shem, he thought at the bearded, fierce-eyed God of Abraham. This morning I opened your gift, tore off the wrapping paper, and looked inside. And just now I showed its frightening beauty to a man who was once a friend.
It looks, at first, like a fine gift. Like the rock that flowed with water for the Hebrew children in the desert. But you and I know that inside the box is another box, and another, and more ad infinitum.
And I'm still no closer to an answer to the basic questions, am I? Where did Halley-Life come from? Did comets seed the Earth, long ago? Or are we only the latest invaders of this little worldlet? How could all of this have happened in the first place?
There was no reply, of course.
He smiled upward, through half a mile of rocky ice, at the stars.
Oh yes. You will have your joke.
David Brin and Gregory Benford
Heart of the Comet
Monday, November 16, 2009
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Moonwater
Cool. The NASA probe that was intentionally crashed into the Moon revealed that there is water ice there. Lots of it. Let's go.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Two blogs
The Wordverter is blogging again. He was distracted from his Internet responsibilities by finishing his Ph.D. and getting a teaching job. Hopefully he has his priorities straight now.
Also, check out the Friendly Humanist. He's been debating me in the comments to this post, and he really lives up to his adjective. It's refreshing to debate someone who respects your position while disagreeing with it.
Also, check out the Friendly Humanist. He's been debating me in the comments to this post, and he really lives up to his adjective. It's refreshing to debate someone who respects your position while disagreeing with it.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
He Is
John's gospel was the last of the canonical gospels written, and has the clearest statements of Jesus' divinity. Some people use this to argue that the claim that Jesus was (and is) God Incarnate was not present in the early Church, but developed over time. Much is made of John's "I am" statements ("εγω ειμι" in Greek), where Jesus uses God's name to describe himself.
Of course I wouldn't deny that there was development in the early Church's understanding of Jesus, but as a simple matter of historical fact, the belief that Jesus was God originates very early in the Church, prior to any of the New Testament's composition. This is acknowledged by the vast majority of scholars.
At any rate, the fact that John's gospel has the most and clearest statements of Jesus' divinity simply does not mean that the synoptic gospels do not contain any such statements. For example, Jesus does say "I am" at some incredibly poignant places in the synoptic gospels. Below is Mark's account of Jesus walking on the water, with the Greek phrase "εγω ειμι" replacing the English. Bear in mind that Mark was probably the first gospel written.
The NIV translates the Greek as "It is I" here, as well as in the parallel description in Matthew 14, which concludes with his disciples worshiping him.
This is just one example; there are other interesting cases. Here are all the occurrences of εγω ειμι in the New Testament for your perusal.
(cross-posted at Quodlibeta)
Of course I wouldn't deny that there was development in the early Church's understanding of Jesus, but as a simple matter of historical fact, the belief that Jesus was God originates very early in the Church, prior to any of the New Testament's composition. This is acknowledged by the vast majority of scholars.
At any rate, the fact that John's gospel has the most and clearest statements of Jesus' divinity simply does not mean that the synoptic gospels do not contain any such statements. For example, Jesus does say "I am" at some incredibly poignant places in the synoptic gospels. Below is Mark's account of Jesus walking on the water, with the Greek phrase "εγω ειμι" replacing the English. Bear in mind that Mark was probably the first gospel written.
When evening came, the boat was in the middle of the lake, and he was alone on land. He saw the disciples straining at the oars, because the wind was against them. About the fourth watch of the night he went out to them, walking on the lake. He was about to pass by them, but when they saw him walking on the lake, they thought he was a ghost. They cried out, because they all saw him and were terrified.
Immediately he spoke to them and said, "Take courage! εγω ειμι. Don't be afraid." Then he climbed into the boat with them, and the wind died down. They were completely amazed, for they had not understood about the loaves; their hearts were hardened.
The NIV translates the Greek as "It is I" here, as well as in the parallel description in Matthew 14, which concludes with his disciples worshiping him.
This is just one example; there are other interesting cases. Here are all the occurrences of εγω ειμι in the New Testament for your perusal.
(cross-posted at Quodlibeta)
Monday, November 9, 2009
Raising the bar
Cool, a $900,000 space elevator prize has been won. The climber ascended a 900-meter line in four minutes. It was powered by solar cells receiving energy from a ground-based laser.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
More on Good Reads
OK, a month ago I mentioned how I signed up on Good Reads to try to make myself accountable for my doctoral research. If I have a list of books that anyone can access to assess my progress (ha!) it will encourage me to get more done. Of course I'm not so vain as to think anyone really cares, but shame is a powerful thing. Why not use it for my own purposes?
As you may have noticed, a few days ago I discovered a widget at Good Reads that lets me display my reading list on the sidebar here. So now the uncaring multitudes won't have to click over to another website to see how I'm progressing in my research, it's right here in black and white (well, in ones and zeros actually).
As you may have noticed, a few days ago I discovered a widget at Good Reads that lets me display my reading list on the sidebar here. So now the uncaring multitudes won't have to click over to another website to see how I'm progressing in my research, it's right here in black and white (well, in ones and zeros actually).
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Medieval Science Fiction
Michael Flynn is one of those science-fiction authors who make you realize how little you know (another is Kim Stanley Robinson). The first book of his I read was Eifelheim, where he displayed voluminous knowledge of the High Middle Ages, including their natural philosophy (i.e. science). Since then I've started in on his Firestar series, being almost done with the second book Rogue Star. James recently pointed to an excellent short story by Flynn entitled "Quaestiones Super Caelo Et Mundo" which further demonstrates his knowledge of medieval science.
On his blog Flynn takes on a spectacularly ill-informed website about Christianity's negative impact on science throughout history. It's amazing how people can be so adamant when they obviously know nothing about a subject. There won't be anything new if you have any knowledge of medieval philosophy and science; you can also check out James's website on many of the same issues.
On his blog Flynn takes on a spectacularly ill-informed website about Christianity's negative impact on science throughout history. It's amazing how people can be so adamant when they obviously know nothing about a subject. There won't be anything new if you have any knowledge of medieval philosophy and science; you can also check out James's website on many of the same issues.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Thought of the Day
Three things about heaven:
The popcorn will taste as good as it smells.
The coffee will taste as good as it smells.
The pizza will taste as good as it always has.
The popcorn will taste as good as it smells.
The coffee will taste as good as it smells.
The pizza will taste as good as it always has.
But who made God?
This post is based on a thread I started at the Quodlibeta forum. Many cosmological arguments (not all) argue that everything that begins to exist must have a cause -- this is basically the principle of causality. But this chain of causality cannot be extended infinitely into the past for two reasons: 1) an infinite amount cannot exist in reality; therefore there must be a first cause that by definition is not the effect of a previous cause itself. 2) We have empirical evidence that the universe itself began to exist (Big Bang cosmology) and is therefore finite; therefore there must be something that exists independently of the universe that brought it into existence. In both cases we end up with something that sounds an awful lot like God.
The objection of some atheists is to ask, "Well then who created God? If everything requires a cause, then God would require a cause too right?"
The response to this should be obvious. Cosmological arguments do not claim that everything that exists requires a cause because there's simply nothing about sheer existence that would require a cause. What philosophers have claimed is that everything that begins to exist requires a cause. It's the "beginning" part that brings causality into play, not the "existing" part. So when we say that "Being does not arise from non-being," the focus is not on the "being" but on the "arising"; it's the latter that necessitates a cause, not the former.
The objection may then be put the other way around: "If God doesn't require a cause, why does the universe? Why couldn't the universe be this first cause?" Again, the response should be obvious: because it began to exist. That's the argument. Of course, you could claim that the argument fails or present an argument of your own that the universe didn't really begin to exist. But to simply say, "Well if God doesn't require a cause, why does the universe?" just ignores the argument that has been presented. It certainly doesn't answer it.
Thus, this objection is a complete straw man. It's a misstatement of the claims being made, a misstatement made in order to raise a bogus objection to certain cosmological arguments. The fact that otherwise brilliant people (such as Bertrand Russell) think this is a good objection only demonstrates that they didn't even hear the argument in the first place.
The reason "Who then created God?" is not a good objection is because the cosmological argument already addresses that issue. The whole point of these arguments is that there must be a cause that is not an effect of a previous cause itself. To ask why this first cause is this way is to ignore the argument that has just been made that this first cause is this way. Of course, showing that something is the case is not the same thing as showing why it is the case. (I would argue that one can answer the "why" question, but that's another issue.) But the atheist is claiming -- at least with this objection -- that unless the argument proves why something is the case, it doesn't prove that it's the case. This is obviously false.
So, for example, I could say that the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter equals pi (in Euclidean space). I could then prove this mathematically. The atheist objection would be "Why should this ratio equal pi?" The answer would be, "It does. Here's the proof again." The atheist would then object "Your mathematical proof doesn't explain why this ratio equals pi." And again, the answer would be, "It does equal pi. Here's the proof again." "But why should it be this way?" "It is this way. Here's the proof again." Etc. It reminds me of a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon where Calvin balks at his math homework. You put two numbers together and they magically become some third number. No one can say how or why it happens, you just have to accept it on faith. "As a math atheist, I should be excused from this."
So when an atheist asks why God should be excused from having to have a cause, the answer is simply to repeat the argument, which (allegedly) demonstrates that there must be a first cause that does not have a cause itself. Perhaps the argument fails to demonstrate this, but the objection that God would then require a cause doesn't even address it.
The objection of some atheists is to ask, "Well then who created God? If everything requires a cause, then God would require a cause too right?"
The response to this should be obvious. Cosmological arguments do not claim that everything that exists requires a cause because there's simply nothing about sheer existence that would require a cause. What philosophers have claimed is that everything that begins to exist requires a cause. It's the "beginning" part that brings causality into play, not the "existing" part. So when we say that "Being does not arise from non-being," the focus is not on the "being" but on the "arising"; it's the latter that necessitates a cause, not the former.
The objection may then be put the other way around: "If God doesn't require a cause, why does the universe? Why couldn't the universe be this first cause?" Again, the response should be obvious: because it began to exist. That's the argument. Of course, you could claim that the argument fails or present an argument of your own that the universe didn't really begin to exist. But to simply say, "Well if God doesn't require a cause, why does the universe?" just ignores the argument that has been presented. It certainly doesn't answer it.
Thus, this objection is a complete straw man. It's a misstatement of the claims being made, a misstatement made in order to raise a bogus objection to certain cosmological arguments. The fact that otherwise brilliant people (such as Bertrand Russell) think this is a good objection only demonstrates that they didn't even hear the argument in the first place.
The reason "Who then created God?" is not a good objection is because the cosmological argument already addresses that issue. The whole point of these arguments is that there must be a cause that is not an effect of a previous cause itself. To ask why this first cause is this way is to ignore the argument that has just been made that this first cause is this way. Of course, showing that something is the case is not the same thing as showing why it is the case. (I would argue that one can answer the "why" question, but that's another issue.) But the atheist is claiming -- at least with this objection -- that unless the argument proves why something is the case, it doesn't prove that it's the case. This is obviously false.
So, for example, I could say that the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter equals pi (in Euclidean space). I could then prove this mathematically. The atheist objection would be "Why should this ratio equal pi?" The answer would be, "It does. Here's the proof again." The atheist would then object "Your mathematical proof doesn't explain why this ratio equals pi." And again, the answer would be, "It does equal pi. Here's the proof again." "But why should it be this way?" "It is this way. Here's the proof again." Etc. It reminds me of a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon where Calvin balks at his math homework. You put two numbers together and they magically become some third number. No one can say how or why it happens, you just have to accept it on faith. "As a math atheist, I should be excused from this."
So when an atheist asks why God should be excused from having to have a cause, the answer is simply to repeat the argument, which (allegedly) demonstrates that there must be a first cause that does not have a cause itself. Perhaps the argument fails to demonstrate this, but the objection that God would then require a cause doesn't even address it.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Pre-Darwinian Evolution
Humphrey has a great post up on creationism and evolution. One of his points is something that I've mentioned on this blog before: the doctrine of rationes seminales. This was a position that apparently originated with the ancient Stoics and was picked up by many Christian writers. The idea, at least as the Christians understood it, is that God created the world in seed-form, or with certain potentialities, which then developed or unfolded accordingly. Obviously this is very similar to evolution. Rationes seminales was accepted by such ancient and medieval Christian writers as Athenagoras, Tertullian, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, Bonaventure, Albertus Magnus, and Roger Bacon. Since such Christian luminaries accepted that the world and its elements developed over time, it becomes obvious that evolution is not at all incompatible with Christianity.
Another point I've made before is something C. S. Lewis brings up in his book The Discarded Image and some essays like "The Funeral of a Great Myth." Lewis argues that, prior to Darwin, there was widespread belief in a sort of developmentalism, according to which the universe and life in particular were progressively becoming "better." Wagner's Ring Cycle is an example of this. This view permeated 18th and 19th century culture, so that when the theory of evolution came along, it was perceived by many as proof of it (although, obviously, this view -- as well as that of rationes seminales -- is teleological whereas Darwinian evolution is not). This developmentalism didn't have a specifically Christian connotation to it, as it tended to disparage the ancients and medievals as intellectually inferior. Lewis's point is that evolution wasn't accepted in Western society purely because of the scientific evidence for it, but because it accorded with the already accepted view of progress or improvement. He doesn't intend this to challenge the validity of evolution, but simply to point out that there was more in play than scientific evidence.
Another point I've made before is something C. S. Lewis brings up in his book The Discarded Image and some essays like "The Funeral of a Great Myth." Lewis argues that, prior to Darwin, there was widespread belief in a sort of developmentalism, according to which the universe and life in particular were progressively becoming "better." Wagner's Ring Cycle is an example of this. This view permeated 18th and 19th century culture, so that when the theory of evolution came along, it was perceived by many as proof of it (although, obviously, this view -- as well as that of rationes seminales -- is teleological whereas Darwinian evolution is not). This developmentalism didn't have a specifically Christian connotation to it, as it tended to disparage the ancients and medievals as intellectually inferior. Lewis's point is that evolution wasn't accepted in Western society purely because of the scientific evidence for it, but because it accorded with the already accepted view of progress or improvement. He doesn't intend this to challenge the validity of evolution, but simply to point out that there was more in play than scientific evidence.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Why I Love the Internet, part 4
The Practice of the Presence of God. A spiritual classic by Brother Lawrence. I have to admit, it makes me a little uncomfortable because it could easily be seen as inventing an imaginary friend. I don't want to pretend that God is with me, I want him to actually be with me, and for me to be aware of it. But then I remember what Dallas Willard wrote in Hearing God:
So, basically, I see The Practice of the Presence of God as a spiritual discipline: something that prepares me to receive God. He still has to act in order for me to receive him.
God wants to be wanted, to be wanted enough that we are ready, predisposed, to find him present with us. And if, by contrast, we are ready and set to find ways of explaining away his gentle overtures, he will rarely respond with fire from heaven. More likely he will simply leave us alone; and we shall have the satisfaction of thinking ourselves not to be gullible.
So, basically, I see The Practice of the Presence of God as a spiritual discipline: something that prepares me to receive God. He still has to act in order for me to receive him.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Spiral car jump
Here's a scene from the James Bond film The Man with the Golden Gun. It's not a very good movie (I never liked Roger Moore's Bond) and it's completely absurd to try to pretend that a jump like this could have been done off the cuff. But it's the most amazing car stunt I've ever seen.
The ridiculous slide whistle almost ruins it. Here's another shot of the jump without it.
And here's a clip of a few other cars doing the same thing. The head-on shot from 0:18 to 0:44 just blows me away.
There are a few articles and blogposts online that have some interesting detail about this stunt and the people who did it. See here, here, here, and here.
The ridiculous slide whistle almost ruins it. Here's another shot of the jump without it.
And here's a clip of a few other cars doing the same thing. The head-on shot from 0:18 to 0:44 just blows me away.
There are a few articles and blogposts online that have some interesting detail about this stunt and the people who did it. See here, here, here, and here.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Related to evil
The mother of Dylan Klebold, one of the killers at Columbine High School, has written an essay about it that will appear in the next Oprah magazine. Here's an article about the article. I can't imagine going through what she has. When I hear about some atrocity like this, I always pray for the families of the perpetrators as well as the victims. To hear about a shooting taking place where your child is, hoping and praying that he or she is safe, and then being told that your child was the murderer is just ... "unimaginable" is not a strong enough word. The child you bore, nursed, taught how to catch a ball and ride a bicycle -- that child chose to commit one of the most evil acts a human being can commit. That he or she became a monster. To know that if there is a hell, the child you cradled and comforted is near the front of the line.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
