My summer reading list

Posted on June 4, 2007 by me

I went to Borders yesterday and bought Victor Stenger’s God: The Failed Hypothesis. I’ve been wanting to read it for myself, although I really hated spending money on it. As I set it on my desk, I noticed a partial stack of the other books I’ve recently acquired. It looks like I’ve got a busy summer ahead of me. Here’s at least a partial list of my good intentions:

I Sold My Soul on eBay, by Hemant Mehta. Sent to me by my friend Mike, this is the story of the author, an atheist, selling the opportunity on eBay for the highest bidder to take him to church. Jim Henderson, from Off The Map, was the highest bidder. I’ve wanted to read this, and look forward to seeing what Hemant has to say.

Looking for God Knows What, by Donald Miller. A gift from friend, this appears to be another interesting, as well as humorous, look at the American Christian experience. I took it to church one Sunday (I often bring something to read as the sermons are often devoid of content), but I had to stop due the tendency to laugh out loud.

Evil and the Justice of God, NT Wright. I love NT Wright, as anyone who knows me knows.

The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins. I have a hold on this at the local library; apparently it’s in high demand. I’ll review this as soon as I’ve read it.

The End of Faith, Sam Harris. I’ve read enough by Harris to know his basic arguments, but want to at least skim the book, and will post on this one, too.

Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris. Might as well read the set.

Surprised by Joy, CS Lewis. I read this many years ago, and a friend suggested I reread it. It will probably serve as my “back-up” book, and kind of a “palate-cleanser.”

The Hidden Face of God, by Gerald Schroeder. On loan from my father-in-law, this is an interesting book that is subtitled How science reveals the ultimate truth. Schroeder is an MIT-educated Israeli (Jewish) with education & experience in both biology and physics. I’m a few pages into this, and I am really appreciating the Jewish philosophical slant of this book.

This list, of course, doesn’t include the handful of novels that I’ve accumulated. Among those I intend to read are a few classics, such as Frankenstein and Phantom of the Opera.

Now, I just need some free time.

Posted in Random Thoughts | 2 Comments

PZ Myers on “Playing God” & support for ID

Posted on June 4, 2007 by me

I just had to toss this in… I just ran across Myers’ May 30 post, Playing God, in which he discusses a Newsweek article on recent efforts to create life in the laboratory. Myers says:

These fellows and others are confident (and rightfully so, I say) that they’ll soon be able to take advantage of molecular technology to build a microorganism from scratch: type a desired sequence into the computer controlling the DNA synthesizer, load up the device with some A, T, C, and G and a set of enzymes, press a button, and a little later you’ve got strands of DNA with your genes written onto them.

And, Myers concludes: “It’s physics and chemistry. Get the recipe right, and that’s all that matters.”

This certainly sounds like Intelligent Design to me, which is possibly why he titled his post Playing God. Unless, of course, he is implying that the biologists working on these projects are non-intelligent beings. 😉

I will say that occasionally Myers at least shows signs of a good sense of humor.

Posted in Faith, Science & Doubt | 1 Comment

A Parable

Posted on June 3, 2007 by me

Long ago, in a place far, far away, some great thinkers discovered a cave. This was not just any cave, this was a great cave, much better than the one Plato had found. This cave was truly magnificent – it had natural ventilation, its own natural light source, essentially everything you need (it’s a parable, okay? Work with me on this) to live. These great thinkers began to study the cave, and learned more about the cave than anyone could have imagined; they became exceptionally knowledgeable about the cave and developed wonderful theories about how the cave worked, and even how the cave came to be.

Many of these great thinkers liked the cave so much, they decided they would never leave. After a period of time, some of these cave-dwellers started to believe that the cave was its own closed system, and that the stories about the world outside were just myth and make-believe. After all, everything they needed was in the cave, and nothing that they learned from the cave told them of an outside world.

However, there were those who claimed to live in the outside world. They were considered fools by the great thinkers of the cave. None of this information was given any credence whatsoever, as it was empirically impossible to verify from within the cave. Any information that claimed to originate from or speak about the outside was classified as heresy and became an object of ridicule by the great thinkers.

Then there were those who appeared to be great thinkers, who worked and studied in the cave shoulder to shoulder with the great thinkers. However, pseudo-thinkers also claimed to have experiences in the outside world, and even claimed that this mythological outside world actually accounted for life inside of the cave! Obviously, these were the biggest fools of all; to look at the evidence of the cave, and then claim it spoke of an existence outside of the cave! The pseudo-thinkers then tried to spread their strange ides among the populace, challenging the teachings of the great thinkers whenever possible. But, the great thinkers controlled the cave education system, and began to work to silence the pseudo-thinkers and deny them tenure. If reason and logic failed, censorship was the only alternative.

But there was life outside of the cave, and lots of it. There would be periodic reports of goings-on in the cave, to which the outsiders would listen to politely, then turn to one another and yawn, “whatever.”

Now, this little parable is not to annoy or vex anyone, or to oversimplify an issue, and it certainly isn’t a perfect analogy. All I mean to do is illustrate a point with regard to a paradigm known as philosophical materialism. PM, in general terms, is a worldview that presumes that there is nothing which is not of the material world or which is not, given the proper methods and tools, observable and measurable. In this worldview, all issues of faith, revelation or non-measurable experience is inconsequential, and to some, it is outright dangerous.

My proposition is that those adopting a paradigm of philosophical materialism are in less of a position to comment on the world than those who are at least open to other forms of knowledge; science is not the only way to know things. Logic would have to say that someone who chooses only to look at a portion of information is limiting what they know. That does not mean that PMists can’t be experts in their own limited fields, just that they greatly limit their ability to see “beyond the cave.” On the other hand, those who choose only to know spiritual things are not qualified to address issues of science; but, they may prove to have chosen more wisely.

If nothing else, we can revisit Pascal’s Wager, and ask which is wiser: to choose to limit all consideration to only that which is scientifically verifiable, or to at least consider all of the potential interpretations of what is observed? The odds don’t look good for philosophical materialism.

Posted in Faith, Science & Doubt | 5 Comments

Something to Talk About

Posted on June 2, 2007 by me

Let’s give them something to talk about…
– Sanjaya Malakar

A question that’s been rolling around my brain for a few days is “of what value is the Darwinist dialog?” Quixote said it well with his comment on yesterday’s post:

Argumentative entropy?

“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”
—Thomas Aquinas

The concept of entropy is that it is essentially “useless energy.” We know that energy is conserved, but more and more of it becomes useless. Does the conversation also become more and more disordered and useless over time?

Perhaps. However, the real value to me is not to prove anything true or false; in fact, I would say that to attempt that is probably useless, and nothing more than arguments about “foolish controversies” (Titus 3:6). As another of my commentors said, what is true doesn’t “give a crap what you, I, your thermodynamicist or the fossil record says.” No, the goal is not proof; the real value, for me, is in relationship. It is the conversation which I value, and I appreciate blog technology for allowing these conversations to continue.

But, let’s shift the conversation a bit. So far, the focus has been on various aspects of evolutionary theory. However, as I’ve postulated before, I don’t think that evolution itself is the issue; the real issue is God. Evolution has been called “the creation myth of philosophical materialism” for a reason, and the connection between the New Atheists and neo-Darwinism adds support to the notion that this is a religious debate more than a scientific debate (and some scientists are mad at folks like Dawkins and Myers for that very reason).

So, let’s talk about God.

Posted in Faith, Science & Doubt | 4 Comments