the last piece

"Bookshops are one of the last pieces of evidence that people are thinking." Jerry Seinfeld.

This reminds me of the stereotypical German joke; you know it well; something about the captain of a ship in trouble calling a German coastguard, yelling "we are sinking!"; "vell, vhat are you sinking about?" retorts the dim German, preferably in a delightful accent which takes good note of the vowels as well as the consonants.

Anyway, having visited a bookshop or three in the last few days, notably the Queen St not-so-creepy-Santa Whitcoulls store, it's interesting to see what NZers are thinking about. Conspiracy theories, Buddhism and of course, sparkly vampires are 'in'; with half a handful of exceptions, science, academia and orthodox Christianity are so far out that they are presumably either cryogenically frozen or dying of frostbite.

Where are the Zogons?

I see no reason to seriously doubt that human persons are the crowning work of God’s creation, made in his image, as we find claimed in the first chapter of the first book of the Torah. [Before you fall asleep or say "blah, blah, blah" under your breath, I note that this piece has only had a few minutes put into it, but the title phrase is so good I might turn it into a proper, (or at least a more proper) article; feel free to share your perspective.]

Humans are pretty cool; messed up for sure, but still pretty cool. In us is a potential for self-awareness, rational reflection and theorizing about the nature of the universe which the chimpanzee would perhaps be envious of if in fact he gave a sh*t. In slightly more estimable language, Graham Cole, Professor of Systematic Theology, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, says: “We may share an enormous amount genetically with a chimpanzee, but will the chimp ever know it?”

Yet, with Genesis in mind, I can quite easily imagine a situation, where, after some further investigation in geographical areas not known by the ancient Hebrews; other continents, the ocean, or other planets; it was discovered that humans are in fact inferior, in terms of characteristics that might reasonably be ascribed to God (should God exist), to another class of creature. Let us call such a creature a Zogon. If a Zogon or their ilk were found to exist, the sceptical child (if we are allowed to label a mere child as ‘sceptical’) could easily ask in Torah class or in Sunday school, “but what about the Zogons?” But, friends, such a child is out of luck, as there are no Zogons! The absence of Zogons and the very real existence of human persons together provide a challenge for the atheist which, as a member of the latter species, they ought to be cognizant of and perhaps concerned about.

Douglas Adams may tell you, if he were alive and took his ‘Hitchhikers’ series a bit too seriously, that the search for the Zogon is unnecessary as we already have on this planet the species Rattus norvegicus and Tursiops truncatus . In response I’d say if given the chance “your books are funny, Doug, but your atheism is the really sad joke in this context; and even the genetically engineered illicit lovechild of a lab rat and a dolphin has nothing on humanity.”

Flippancy aside, I am fully serious that if you can show me a Zogon I will have to put much work into reconsidering my theology concerning Genesis. Regardless, with your presence and the use of just a common household mirror, I can quite easily show you a human being – and this, as various postings in this blog have hinted at, is an astounding fact indeed.

ninja vs pirate - off the cuff

Now, it may seem that it depends on the time periods and specific cultures from which the competitors were chosen; but I suggest it also depends largely on what you mean by "fight". For instance, a debate wouldn't last very long unless they both spoke the same language - and even then, the ninja's throwing stars would have to be carefully guarded I would suppose.

And what if the pirate was Somalian? What of it, you ask. It is nothing to do with his/her nationality as such, but a Somalian pirate has access, some of the time, to massive oil tankers, not to mention speedboats and AK47s - even a really fast ninja may have difficulty outrunning AK47 fire, or more explosively, the actual fire from a burning oil tanker.

You see, you really have to think about this kind of thing. I'll soon be quietly asking the right people for a new chair at Oxford, funded no doubt by a Microsoft billionaire - "Professor of the Public Understanding of Philosophy" - then when I'm appointed and had some chance to be controversial and start a lecturing circuit and manage to convince people to pay me for Skype appearances, I'll write a book about the conflict, solely, of course, from the Pirates' perspective - what say I call it (I think after a Margaret Mahy book) "the Greatest Show on Earth"?

de-personification; a recalibration

While I'm on a theme, I'll run with it a bit. I attribute this thought, paraphrased, to that beloved-of-evangelicals oxford don from the era of WWII (surprisingly enough, not Dawkins.)

-The de-personification of objects does not require atheistic materialism.
-It was quite effectively introduced with Christian theism.
-i.e. the world is natural, but its creator lies outside of nature.
-The depersonification of people - now that requires atheistic materialism!

too complicated

It’s interesting that Richard Dawkins on one hand is well known for criticising the of concept God, i.e. the God of Christian theism, as being a being too complex to actually exist; or at least have any explanatory power – and yet he is found suggesting that if God does exist, he’s going to be “bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible” than our current God. Is it just me, or is it the Dawkins claim that some kind of God type thing could possibly exist but only if it’s a bit more complicated than those religious dolts think?

Perhaps we should just take this as Dawkins admitting he has no interesting philosophical arguments against God’s existence. This, in any case, has been clear enough to various philosophers for a little while.

"and nothing remained"

I'm not meant to be posting today, but there is so much exciting stuff I've found in the last couple of days I feel a need to share a smidgeon.

“It is come, I know not how, to be taken for granted, by many persons, that Christianity is not so much a subject of inquiry; but that it is, now at length, discovered to be fictitious. And accordingly they treat it as if, in the present age, this were an agreed point among all people of discernment; and nothing remained, but to set it up as a principal subject of mirth and ridicule, as it were by way of reprisals, for its having so long interrupted the pleasures of the world.”

This complaint was written, not by me (though I too appreciate the tasteful use of commas and semi-colons), but by another churchperson, also of Anglican extraction. In 1736. A guy called Joseph Butler wrote this: well before the so-called Victorian crisis of faith; eons before Dawkins; before Darwin, before anthropological study attempted to relativise all religions, before higher criticism, modernism and postmodernism and serious investigation into the historical accuracy of the biblical record, over 250 years before the fall of the Berlin Wall and my own entrance into the world.

Also just prior to the 18th Century 'First Great Awakening' – the revival that swept through Britain and the U.S., arguably giving birth to that behemoth of modern day religion, evangelicalism.

Revival – it’s good for you!

I suggest that Atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, Roman Catholics, Agnostics, Hindus and Evangelical Christians alike should be praying for spiritual revival in, for instance, our universities; and the rest of society i.e. we should all be praying for a massive stirring up of the Church in New Zealand.


What the hell, mate - you've gone insane!! (You may be thinking.)

But no. In any case, I do not think so.

Atheists may well not be inclined to prayer. Yet maybe with the following in view, it's worth a try? I hope to do some more work on this sometime, but I hear at least rumours of fairly clear evidence that evangelical revivals are good for society; good for education; good for humanism; good for happiness; good for health; good for people. Think about things in society that contribute to human flourishing and well-being - concerning, say, social cohesion, education, health and the promotion of the dignity of the person and respect for life. Think about where they have their roots; historically & philosophically. Talk to me about it if you want.

And if my hypothesis is right and if you care about 'Noo Zillund' society, you may be pleased to hear it - as I suspect this coming year will be at the least an interesting one for Christians in this little land - and quite possibly (are you hearing the careful qualifications here?); in the disappointed face of the long-awaited and long-missing secularisation-caused decline in religion; a good one.

We see it in a number of places around the world atm - and as sidelined, belittled and disregarded as Jesus may be this particular Christmas in this particular place, He ain't dead.

Is Global Warming for Real?? - You Decide!!

I don't know whether to crack up or cry quietly at the state of the media in NZ exhibited nicely in Close Up's special tonight. I don't, I note, know what the result was and I do not really care.

The topic is interesting, I guess. It is complicated and I am sympathetic to the doubters of anthropogenic warming a la Wishart, but do not side with them. Regardless of which side; if any; is correct, the evangelical Christians who seem to think it is their God-given duty to deny climate change disappoint me and appear to me to do the gospel a disservice; but they are entitled to their opinions.

Wishart, the 'sceptic' in the debate (& a convert to conservative Christianity, pit for the 'debate' against Gareth Morgan, incidentally an atheist - note that to spice it up a little, both of them are towards the right wing classical liberal / libertarian side of politics) made an off-the-cuff remark that if we are to say that a lack of action on the climate question is irresponsible the same may be said about lack of action re: the God question. Indeed Ian; if there is some evidence for either God or global warming, further action may well be warranted.

So that's interesting, but you might wonder how the religious affiliation of those discussing climate change is relevant and the answer is: I'm not quite sure. But it intrigues me that on both sides of the debate we find vociferous religious people and vociferous non-religious people (e.g. Ian Plimer contra a changing climate.)

The moral of the story? Have a lovely summer Christmas folks! And be glad it isn't snowing, particularly, I suppose if you're pregnant and need to use a donkey for transportation, as that would kinda suck.

Eeyore is so hilarious I almost want to cry – how did I miss this stuff?

Exempli gratia:
‘If anybody wants to clap,’ said Eeyore when he had read this, ‘now is the time to do it.’
They all clapped.
‘Thank you,’ said Eeyore. ‘Unexpected and gratifying, if a little lacking in Smack.’

BUT WAIT; THERE’S MORE!
‘I’ve got a sort of idea,’ said Pooh at last, ‘but I don’t suppose it’s a very good one.’
‘I don’t suppose it is either,’ said Eeyore.

(If anybody wants to laugh, now is the time to do it.)

The Multi-tasking Blogger

I generally have an aversion to multi-tasking. It gets complicated.

However, I have been known to also blog (once) at Thinking Matters.

(sorry, can't get link to work atm.)
http://talk.thinkingmatters.org.nz/2009/mestatisizing-the-christ-myth/
And yes - it's spelt incorrectly, but not in the actual post.

In case you wondered what I do with my time.

I do, I note, do other things too; like reading books. I'm a fun guy

Does "Trust" play an important role in science?

I think so. I intend to one day write a bit more about it.

e.g.

Trust in fellow scientists & published results
Trust in equipment, techniques & presuppositions
Trust in rationality & reasoning
Trust in the comprehensibility & consistency of the universe

"Oh, Oyster of Wisdom: Barf me your Pearls!"

I got nothin to add to that, I just thought it was nice.
(You may consider this blog a string of pearls if you wish. It would perhaps follow that I am a vomiting crustacean - and it's not too bad a living.)