for all the doubters - don't mess with the quoll

There are reputed to be, somewhere out there, people who don't believe that God exists.

Meet my friend. (Don't mess with the quoll.)

Image courtesy of Wikipedia

Yes, he(she) is a quoll; probably a Tiger Quoll. I'm pretty sure he(she) is Australian too, but we won't hold it against him(her), cos God made this little fellah(dudette)! God exists and is awesome.


For the analytical philosophers amongst you, this is the argument - I assure you it is idiot proof:
(There are suppressed premises and stuff, but it's all pretty obvious)

P1: Quolls (exist.)

Therefore probably: God (exists.)

Happy happy fun fun – a cogent philosophy of life or failed self-worship?

Perhaps no-one seriously holds such views comprehensively; that’s ok, for straw men tend to be the easiest to demolish; nevertheless it remains a strand through society worth severing if in fact false. If I'm wrong, tell me why.

What’s the meaning of life (granted, this a problematic question)? To have fun!
What ought moral theory to be about? Maximising fun.
What is a good death? A peaceful end to an all-round fun time(?)

There are variants; but quite visible is a twisted situation where everything is made fungible or at least liquid if only viewed through the lens of the true universal currency, Fun or ‘utility’ for the more sophisticated. Some things of course make little sense when spoken of in these terms, but, following in the footsteps of the ontologically/metaphysically-minimalist logical positivists before, maybe we just shouldn’t talk about such things (as duty, responsibility, cancer, God, others' rights, a full well-going life and the like) if they cannot be fudged to fit the funfair universe. Of course there are deficiencies to such vapid hedonistic utilitarianism, or so I would like to claim. One would be that it fails to provide an internal account for why we should accept it, so if we want a justification of the concept as part of the theory, it clearly cannot be all-embracing.

JP Moreland, before refuting them, expresses such ideas rather nicely in an article on euthanasia:

“I do not exist for morality; rather, morality exists for me. The whole point of
morality is to protect my individual rights, preserve my individual happiness,
and maintain a well-ordered society within which I can seek happiness in
whatever way I define happiness (provided, of course, that I do not harm
others). The main purpose of life is happiness, and pain and suffering
are to be avoided whenever possible. My own goals and purposes are what
give my life meaning, and when I cannot pursue those goals and purposes
in a way that satisfies me, my life is no longer meaningful.

... my loyalty to my community is a much lower priority than is my loyalty to
myself. Communities exist for the individual, not vice versa. And when
community loyalties require me to sacrifice personal pleasures in a way that is
not in my own self interest, then I have no obligation to the community."

Haiti's troubles

This blogpost from an Australian left-wing female who happens to be some kind of atheist (I know, I know, maybe it seems like I'm abandoning The Cause, whatever that is) says some interesting things. I don't have huge sympathy for things like the World Bank, but I didn't realise they had such high interest rates or could be painted as such a rip-off! Perhaps a lesson to learn is that corruption and poor standards breed corruption and poor standards and if outside intervention is self-interested (and their goals don't magically align with those of the locals as economists would love to assume), the results can be ugly. Of course, it doesn't follow that trying to promote the economic development of a majority-world nation is evil; just that discernment wrt motivation may assist in true value creation.

What makes us human?

An interesting question.
Intriguing possibilities.

here soon (I think this could be the biggest contribution yet made by ME)

"An informal survey of biochemistry lecturers at a major research University" (on the use of "designed", "evolved" and cognates, in stage one lectures, illustrating the approximate prevalence of teleological language in this field.)

10 things you don't know about me (can any1 tell I'm meant to be writing a tutorial exercise??)

Removed while I consider the nature of this website and what it's actually about.

Behe bites back

An update on my previous post "in the E Coli of the beholder"

I think this, here, provides confirmation for my main intuition (independently garnered), that the long-range research added additional empirical evidence for some of the statistical claims in "the Edge of Evolution". Michael Behe wrote his amazon post half way through 08 in response to the Lenski paper, so I was a bit behind; but that's ok.

I should clarify that the change we're talking about only concerned the transport of citrate rather than its use for energy per se. The 'wild' E Coli cells could already use citrate in the cell (as anyone who has studied the Krebs Cycle should know!) but could not normally get this kind of molecule across the membrane from outside. Also, Behe suggests the mutation was more than a point mutation - I did note the likelihood of multiple mutations pointed to in Lenski's paper, but MB implies there are other classes of possible mutations too (I think these would include larger deletions.) I'm not sure that I originally quite understood the point of the paper in other ways too, particularly in that the trait had actually already been found previously in a couple of different studies - it was the long-term 'historical study showing contingency in evolution' aspect that was meant to be particularly interesting; however, I'm learning.


Picture: Wikipedia

origami mol-bio style

I'm a fan of proteins and folding and suchlike. This is not hugely sophisticated, but the picture is nice and it's interesting. I'd have to look up some of the phylogenetic stuff and see about possible precursors before fully endorsing, but the importance of chaperonins particularly for large proteins is, well, so far as I can tell, large. (I'll let you know more if I manage to squeeze in the course on proteins I have been hanging out for for a while next year - not looking the best timetable-wise so far, but we can hope.)

the waning of the dyed-in-the-wool faith-head society?

I can't be bothered searching for statistical analyses, so I shall rely on anecdotal evidence. A favourite quote of mine (which I just invented) is "anecdotes beat statistics." This would seem to be true in that word-of-mouth travels faster than those facilitating the NZ Census etcetera.

Let us accept that the Church (say, for example my home-by-choice of the Anglican Church) has declined significantly in the West, including NZ. Apparently this has "implications, no?" I write this in response to a request; let me know how I fare.

Let us break it down.

Maybe if the Church is God's people on earth it should always be visibly growing. This is not a biblical claim and I don't see much reason to believe it, but it would not be a problem if it happened! Well, a problem for some perhaps; like those engaged in trafficking children, warmongers, those who exploit the environment, those who rely on secular humanism (yet also God) for selling their blasphemous books and those who like their sins to be acceptable. Anyway, a claim I do see in the good book is that the Church shall always exist. No sign of it dying completely yet, so all good so far. Perhaps in the next few decades, the Church will though die in the West and the primitives in other countries shall gratefully inbibe our medicine of hopeful hopelessness as well. Perhaps.

The signs aren't good so long as passionate evangelical and charismatic Christianity continues to explode (in a good way) in places like Nigeria; while the Chinese middle classes and academics convert to the point where Jesus is bigger than The Party; and signs-and-wonders show up in South America such that the God of Christianity is given the glory.

But am I not just distracting you from where the real wisdom is to be found - secular New Zealand and perhaps Europe (the States; economic and scientific superpower, is an aberration clearly not worthy of mention)? Yes and no. In Europe (& North Africa and S-E Asia) Islam is doing pretty well, partially through high birth rates (as well as, in a different place, conversions in US prisons; but perhaps that particular phenomenon has decreased.) OK, sarcastic/ironic asides aside, obviously I'm still just trying to hide that my Church/religion is dying and isn't worthy of your time (catch my little rhyme?) Well, the pentecostals and non-denominational evangelicals are actually doing pretty well numerically (e.g. Life, Arise, Harbourside, GCC, WCCC.) In the Anglican Church in Auckland, a number of my friends' churches aren't doin too bad either IMHO, most clearly St Pauls, having increased about 10fold (or more) in 6-ish years to a roll of ~1000. We do have issues with theological liberalism, which can kill churches. The Presbyterians at least, I have heard, have managed to turn around to a significant extent wrt this and there is hope yet! More obviously problematic are our demographics - apparently the average age at churches in the UK (I assume the CofE) is 61 and I guess we're in a similar boat. There is a baby boomer bubble in the population-at-large and so as this ages and deceases, a bit of reduction is to be expected in churches which aren't able to engage more recently formed generations.

There is also a general decline of the prominence of the established churches in society; I suppose the growth of the state in providing welfare may have something to do with it as the instigator of this post suggested, but in recent years it seems more attributable to growth in immigrant populations and consequently, adherence to other faiths. Christianity also loses many young people, often in their 20s - sometimes they come back to a church when they have children. Clearly Christianity is not inherited like the wrinkly trait in peas (note: actually, since the trait is recessive (and most churchgoers are wrinkly) maybe there are some similarities!) A cultural shift away from taking Jesus seriously is truly concerning for someone who cares about people - but is not necessarily any kind of defeater for religious belief. The Church has continued to see many conversions in recent years. I can think of a couple of handfuls of friends and associated hoi polloi who've left the non-faith or luke-warmish-agnosticism of their parents; long may it continue! Even in the small youth network of the Anglican Church, perhaps even more so than elsewhere, I have met a few such critters. Academics too retain, accept, or return to faith; even on these skeptical shores. As our culture's media and other structures are secularised (not sense of becoming completely atheistic, just less Church-friendly), Christianity polarises as it did not so much in the 50s. Nominal adherence drops (surprise!), but does the number who actually believe in the salvific death and resurrection of Jesus and live accordingly? Atm for me, that's an open question. It will be affected by; amongst others; you, the readers of this blog!

The Church is an unpopular minority force in our culture, but it continues to impact lives for good. Good does in fact exist, as God does - and His people, for better or worse, remain the Church.

spreading the good word

I don't frequently read "Canvas", the glossy insert in the Weekend Herald, but I couldn't resist the glowing cross on the front cover of last week's edition. The research for the article thusly advertised (on contemporary Christianity) was bad. In the sense of not-good. So, not because there wasn't enough of it - a few people were talked to, in an attempt to show division within the Church, including Asher Bastion and Nathan King, who are both worth the time of day. But what about NZ's expert on this kind of thing, Peter Lineham; or the quite-young incoming bishop of Auckland, Ross Bay, or someone like psychologist John McClure (Victoria) or academics from Laidlaw? Oh, right - Christianity isn't allowed to be shown as particularly intelligent, lest it appear true.

Instead we hear it implied that newer expressions of Christianity are all hype and there's nothing behind the façade. Of course, if you want to say that, you can; and I am no big fan of emotionalism and motivational speakers taking over the pulpit; but the article just wasn't good quality. One presumably-secular marketing person was quoted about "selling Jesus" and this was applied as if it had come of the mouth of a representative of Christianity. Figures given for Parachute were false - unfortunately way too large. The tag line suggested that a new brand of Christianity wants to present itself as more liberal and exciting. There is some truth to both claims, but the pentecostal/charismatic churches to which most of the article refers are only "liberal" in a social sense e.g. rock music, smoke machines and jeans are fine (though alcohol generally not.) Theologically they are generally (tho I am no fan of what the more extreme prosperity wing a la Joel Osteen), in fact very conservative. To support the "liberal" claim of course St Matthews, that embarassment to mainstream Anglicanism, is referred to (in response to their new billboard, I ask "why stop at two?" - but I guess they're not into polygamy at St Matts, for it reeks of conservatism. Interestingly, the small 'community church' advertised by that billboard, that uses their building has some parishioners too conservative for the current waffly crew at the main service anyway.) The St Matts reference doesn't fit the article, but people are so ignorant about religious matters that few will care. Finally, twas also claimed (something like) "one day Jesus will have his own facebook page." ROFL-confusedly. He's had one for a while so far as I can tell, Canvas dude. Behind the times? Well I guess you'd know.

The Church is a multi-faceted creature, it is interesting indeed and in New Zealand it is not dead.

"Wolkenskukuheim"

From the Maverick: for comment and/or edification

Residing in their utopian Wolkenskukuheim -- a wonderful word I found in Schopenhauer translatable as 'Cloud Cuckoo Land' -- radical leftists are wrong about religion, wrong about human nature, wrong about the terrorist threat, wrong about the ‘fascist theocracy’ of Bush & Co., wrong about economics; in short, they are wrong about reality.

They are delusional reality-deniers. Now that they are in our government, we are in grave danger. I sincerely hope that people do not need a 'nuclear event' to wake them up. Political Correctness can get you killed.

revelling in the rain

I am a fan of the Parachute Music Festival. I am proud that what is (it is claimed) the largest Christian music festival outside the U.S. and at least in the southern hemisphere, is here in NZ - even if it is near the Tron. I have spent enough time, money and potentially social capital promoting the festival to be reasonably sure that I'm not a hater.

However, even though it is a 'music' festival, I think trends there illustrate some issues the Church in NZ should face up to. The festival is a highpoint on the Christian calendar and in presenting the gospel to young people in this country, with many making commitments each year. (It is difficult to determine how many of these commitments have been long-lasting, but anecdotal evidence from similar events suggests not a really high percentage. One of the issues which is clearly recognised is a need for discipleship; basically, 'follow-up'.) Putting other issues aside, I'd like to call into question the focus/theme of such events - feel free to comment.

The theme is, it appears, "be excited about Jesus!" And this is fair enough - Jesus is exciting, which is particularly obvious in the cases of those who haven't really met him before. But we don't, it seems, really say why we should be excited apart perhaps from finding a verse or two that can illustrate the message; nor do we see much in the way of thinking about how it should really play-out when we return to the 'real' world outside a Christian-youth subculture. What is needed is, simply, good teaching.

The teaching at Parachute (I'm thinking of mainstage) is passionate and aims to give glory to God through Jesus, with the Holy Spirit also playing a prominent part - all good so far. But the music festival context particularly emphasises experiential or emotional aspects - and unless you dig deeper you may leave thinking that there is little substance beneath. The teachers could come from broader theological perspectives i.e. perhaps fewer from the AoG and associates and they could (should) also pack more meat into their talks. More Bible exposition, less "positive thinking" would not be of harm, methinks.

Anyway, the real-life example I shall give to illustrate this sermon is the comparative attendance at the events (which I paraphrase to make the context clearer) "Hillsong United at morning meeting" and "Mark Strom (principal of Laidlaw College [an evangelical tertiary institution]) speaks about St Paul and the Philosophers at Athens". They were at different times and the morning meeting event was more prominent - yet I'll guess that crowded into the Palladium building this morning (judging by the figures given by easter camp of ~6000) were up to 10,000 people. Venturing out to hear Mark Strom on Saturday were up to 100. The interesting thing for me is that if the messages of the principal of Laidlaw, about intelligent contextualisation of the gospel, were put into action or thought about seriously, the impact could be something like a tsunami compared with the (while important) relatively quantatively minor ripples from the morning meeting.

People I would like to see (teaching) at Parachute: Jesus (I was incidentally wondering on Friday, given the delightful red sky, about how appropriate it would be for the rapture to occur while Rapture Ruckus was on stage - but that's another issue), Tim Keller, John Lennox, William Dembski, DA Carson (or one of the host of people like him at places like Trinity Ev. Div. School, Fuller, etc), Ben Witherington III (have I mentioned that I've had an email conversation with him?), William Lane Craig (or one of many other philosophers such as Victor Reppert, Charles Taliaferro), Kelly Monroe etc etc - basically, hoping this doesn't sound too arrogant, the people directing Parachute should make a visit to my bookshelf and start making a list.