do miracles occur? - practice

Arguing the philosophy of miracles is one thing, claiming to have observed them is another. And who better to report on healing miracles than qualified doctors? (See miracles happen for some background, and heart starting action for a well-reported example.)

The World Christian Doctors Network (WCDN) compiles case histories of apparent miracles, and presents them on its website, and at its annual conferences. It recently held its 2009 conference in Kiev, Ukraine.

Many cases of apparent miraculous healing were reported at the conference, including a documented case of an Australian man who had been given only a short time to live because of recurring skin cancer which had "metastasized" to his chest and lungs. But after attending a christian healing prayer meeting, "tumor regression started" and after further prayer his skin cancer disappeared, and a CT scan showed the lung cancer had gone as well.

The same Aussie doctor also told of how she had been revived after being "dead" for 45 minutes, an occurrence she regards as a miracle because she suffered no brain damage.

what are we to make of this?

For many christians, these stories are easily believed, but sceptics (which includes some christians) can always find reasons to disbelieve - perhaps the documentation is deemed inadequate, perhaps the event occurred but was a fortuitous but natural occurrence, or perhaps they just simply cannot believe because of their scepticism.

It seems to me that we have to at least accept that some miracles appear to have occurred, and resolutely maintaining that none of these events are actually miracles seems contrary to the evidence. But these events raise other questions, such as "if these miracles really did occur, why doesn't God do miracles happen more often?" I wish I knew the answer to that one!

do miracles occur? - theory

Some people believe in miracles, some believe they never happen.

Sceptics tend to quote philosopher David Hume, who argued that if someone tells us about an apparent miracle (an event that is contrary to the known laws of nature), it is always more likely that the person's testimony is doubtful than that the miracle actually happened. Thus, he argued, we can never be justified in believing the miracle occurred.

Sceptics often take this to mean that Hume showed that miracles cannot occur, but this isn't correct. If we regard Hume's argument as valid, it doesn't show that miracles cannot or do not occur, only that we cannot ever have sufficient reasons to believe they have - which is very different.

Hume's argument is assumed by some to have ended the matter, but philosophers are now much less inclined to think Hume got it right. Books such as John Earman's "Hume's Abject Failure" and "Hume, holism, and miracles" by David Johnson argue that Hume got it wrong, perhaps very badly wrong. Other philosophers argue that Hume's argument can be re-worked into a form that is still valid. But perhaps the general view, for example, as expressed in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is that miracles are now an open question.

What is the basis for the arguments against Hume?

Richard Swinburne argues that we have many more means to test miracles these days than the simple personal testimony of a few alleged eyewitnesses as Hume seemed to assume. Thus it may not be likely that the evidence is unable to overcome the improbability of a miracle, especially if one is open-minded about the possibility of God existing.

Victor Reppert and Earman both use probability theory to show that Hume's claims are wrong. For example, if there are enough eye-witnesses to a supposed miracle, the probability of them all being mistaken can be shown mathematically to diminish to almost zero. (Reppert also points out that if Hume's argument is correct, we could never believe a newspaper report about a lottery winner because the probability of winning the lottery will always be less than the probability that the newspaper got it wrong!)

A related issue is whether science has proven miracles impossible, as some sceptics say. But the philosophers tell us that science has done no such thing. Science shows us what happens in the natural course of events, and cannot tell us whether God might interfere.

But even though the philosophers, in general, seem to maintain an open mind on the possibility of miracles, scientists and sceptics seem unwilling to admit even the possibility. For example, Carter Bancroft, Professor of Physiology and Biophysics, writes: "A central tenet of science (particularly of the physical sciences) holds that, at least since the Big Bang, a fundamental set of laws has governed the entire universe—no exceptions permitted." In other words, the laws of nature don't simply describe what normally happens, they describe what must happen, with no allowance for freely willed actions, by people or by God.

But then again, as Miracle Max said in "The Princess Bride": "Look who knows so much!"

Next post, do miracles occur? - practice.

illegal immigration?

Photo: MorgueFile

For many years now, Australia has been the destination of "boat people" - refugees or would-be immigrants from troubled lands to the north and west. Decades ago they were from Vietnam, more recently from the Middle East, Afganistan and Sri Lanka.

And for the same period, debate has raged in Australia between those who want to keep out the "illegals", and those who want to offer help to people in distress. Elections have been fought over the issue, and opinions are highly polarised.

Take these two examples:

In favour of compassion

Recently my friend Russ presented on his blog, Out on a limb, a number of reasons in favour of treating refugees like humans, based on material prepared by GetUp!. It was presented in the form of myths about asylum seekers, which were:

Myth 1 – Australia takes in more than its fair share of asylum seekers

Australia's current intake is lower than average, below UN recommendations, and per capita only 20th (out of 44 countries considered) in the world.

Myth 2 – Boat people are swamping our shores

Only 10% of asylum seekers arrive by boat, most come by air. A greater percentage of boat arrivals are found to have valid reasons. Far more people overstay their visas illegally.

Myth 3 – the Government's changes in policy have made Australia a soft target

There is no evidence that changes in Government policy, either a "tougher" stance or a more lenient one, have made any significant difference to the numbers of arrivals. Rather, conditions in the countries of origin seem to be the main factor.

Myth 4 – Refugees are a burden on our economy

Refugees are an insignificant proportion of welfare payments and may assist the economy in providing expansion to the workforce.

Myth 5 – Boats are bringing terrorists to our shores

This is an unlikely route for terrorists. In the US, all immigrants involved in the World Trade Centre attacks arrived on visas.

Myth 6 – Asylum seekers are illegal immigrants

Seeking asylum is legal under Australian and international law to which Australia is a signatory. Whether they are allowed entry as genuine refugees is a matter for Australia to determine.

All this seems very reasonable and humane. On these facts, it would seem that Australia should be more generous to people in distress. Yet there is another side to the story.

In favour of a "stronger" policy

In a recent Sydney Morning Herald, journalist Paul Sheehan (Migration: the true story) argued that Australia is not a racist, inhumane or intolerant society:

1. The record high number of refugees admitted by the previous government did not generate significant public opposition.

2. Despite rising violence by militant Islamists around the world, the increase in Muslim numbers via legal channels in the past two decades has generated no meaningful political opposition.

3. Australia has a high number of foreign-born residents (almost 25%) and one of the world's largest per capita immigrants intakes, with the majority of arrivals being non-European.

4. It is more difficult to identify and check those people who arrive by boat than those who arrive by air and overstay their visas.

5. A recent spate of convictions for terrorist activity within Australia has largely involved people who came as immigrants.

6. The Tamil Tigers, from whom many recent arrivals originate, have received considerable support in Australia.

7. Australia can only accept a certain number of refugees without harm to economy, environment or social structure.

8. The present Government deploys a zero-sum refugee policy, so if boat arrivals are accepted, those who register to immigrate have to wait longer.

9. UN conventions on asylum seekers do not override Australian law.

10. Some would-be immigrants are demanding rights that do not exist under international law.

This too seems reasonable, if not so humane. Which story is true?

It seems likely that both sets of facts are true. In which case, the truth is very complex, and there are no easy answers. We want to help the unfortunate refugees, but we want to remain in control and be fair to others. There are arguments both ways, and the Australian Government and people will have to resolve them.

I am still a little inclined to the compassionate option. But we would all be better served if politicians on both sides spoke less like the "shock jocks" of talkback radio and gave us their considered assessments of these facts and the best possible compromise.

mind and brain

Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tundraboy/303703384/

What is our brain? What is consciousness?

These are tricky questions. Naturalists, who believe the physical world is all there is, don't have a simple answer. For we can distinguish between the physical brain processes which accompany an emotion like sadness (which neuroscience can measure), and the feeling of sadness (which science cannot measure, but which we experience). The experience is real, yet it isn't in any obvious sense physical.

The usual answer is that the mind and consciousness are emergent properties of the brain. They cannot exist without the brain (it is assumed) and they are thus anchored in the physical.

Neuroscience, and science generally, assumes naturalism. Even scientists who are non-naturalists (e.g. theists) work from the basis of methodological naturalism - a supernatural explanation is generally not acceptable as science. And methodological naturalism has reigned supreme in science, including neuroscience, for more than a century.

But some challenges to the naturalist view of neuroscience are appearing. One is the number of near death experiences (which I reported on in near death experiences - could they be real?) which seem to be unexplainable on naturalistic assumptions.

Another is the research of neuroscientist Dr Jeffrey Schwartz, whose study of brain dysfunction has yielded what he sees as unexpected results. Dr Schwartz has long experience in treating patients with obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) using behavioural therapy, where the patient's behaviour is modified by their own will and discipline. In essence, when they feel compelled to do a particular action which is unnecessary, they, in a sense, "talk themselves out of it". This approach is recognised as a very useful means of dealing with OCD.

The unexpected result was that this therapy actually brought about a measurable change in the physical structure of their brains, in their neural pathways. It was a scientific case of "mind over matter" - non-physical thinking seems to have changed physical processes and structure.

All this is obviously welcome. However, Dr Schwartz has gone on to argue that these experiments demonstrate that the naturalist or materialist explanation of the brain/mind is clearly wrong, and a non-materialist explanation is required. This seems to entail some form of dualism. This of course is not acceptable to materialists. And so his views have copped criticism, e.g. from atheists like Austin Cline and PZ Myers.

I don't take too much notice of Myers on this - the vehemence of his critique is surely much more based on his preconceived metaphysics than on objective science. But despite searching, I haven't found any objective assessment of Schwartz's dualistic ideas, so while his therapy is well regarded, it is hard to know how his views on the non-material brain are being accepted.

I have also had little success finding out his religious (or otherwise) beliefs. He has signed the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, and his conclusions are well regarded by science journalist and author Denyse O'Leary, who is a christian. On the other hand, the only religious comment I have found from him is his comparison of his therapy with the Buddhist practice of mindfulness.

But regardless, metaphysics has again impinged on science, and the ensuing battle is likely to be more about the metaphysics than the science.

Read about Schwartz's book The Mind and the Brain, and a brief summary of his views from his website.

wasted lives: the last deaths in World War 1

The so-called Great War has an awful fascination for me. Yes, so many men responded heroically under inhuman conditions. But many of these conditions were created by (in Sting's phrase) "corpulent generals, safe behind lines", who gave orders that brutally disregarded the lives of the men who served under them, and were often made regardless of the actual conditions, but based more on tradition and limited understanding of modern warfare.

And so Gallipoli, Passchendaele, the Somme and many other names have become part of our history and folklore, and testimony to military and political folly as well as human resilience and bravery, as millions died for no real gain.

That much I already knew. But I only learned of the even greater folly of the last days of the war in a recent BBC documentary, The Last Day of World War One.

The Allies and the Germans had been negotiating a cease-fire, virtually a German surrender, for several days. On the morning of the 11th November, 1918, between 5:00 and 6:00 am, the cease-fire was signed by both parties, to come into effect at 11:00 am - presumably to allow time for all field units to be notified. The generals knew about the imminent cease-fire hours beforehand.

Most field commanders stood their troops down, resting until the cease-fire, when they could safely leave their trenches. But, inexplicably, in a war characterised by enormous loss of life for very little gain in ground, some generals ordered their men to continue fighting, with continued loss of life. Incredibly, a total of 11,000 casualties (killed, wounded or missing) were sustained on Armistice Day, more than the casualties on D-Day in WW2.

Some of the stories are poignant, most show disregard for human life, all induce anger and grief.

• The last British soldier to die was Private George Ellison, aged 40, who had survived more than 4 years of trench warfare, artillery bombardments, gas attacks, tanks, machine guns and snipers that had killed more than a million of his fellow Britishers, only to miss out on returning to his waiting wife and child by less than ninety minutes.
• The last French soldier to die was Augustin Trebuchon, a runner bringing the message of the cease-fire to troops on the front line, just 15 minutes before it took effect.
• Canadian Private George Lawrence Price was still fighting, needlessly chasing German soldiers from houses that they would be vacating after the cease-fire, and was shot with just 2 minutes of the remaining. (It may be that Price's death was the result, not of orders, but of reckless action by his patrol.)
  
• And US soldier Henry Gunther participated in a charge on entrenched German positions. The Germans, knowing the cease-fire was imminent, waved the charging soldiers back, but they kept coming, and Gunther was shot just 1 minute before the end.
• It appears that the last German soldier to die was shot after the armistice came into effect. Leutnant Tomas approached US soldiers after 11:00 to arrange the evacuation of his troops, but was shot because the US soldiers had not been informed of the cease-fire.

After the war, the reckless disregard of some US generals for the lives of their men was questioned:

• General Wright's troops were exhausted and dirty, and hearing there were bathing facilities available in the nearby town of Stenay, he decided to take the town so his men could refresh themselves (a few hours earlier than could have occurred after the cease-fire). That "lunatic decision" cost something like 300 casualties.
• Maj Gen Sumerall sent his troops out on one last attack across the Meuse River with these words: "I don’t expect to see any of you again, but that doesn’t matter. You have the honor of a definitive success–give yourself to that."
  
• General Pershing, the US commander, thought the Allies should have pursued the Germans all the way to Berlin, to utterly defeat them, believing the Armistice would only pave the way for further conflict in the future as the Germans would not believe they were defeated. History suggests that it was the ignominy of the defeat that led in part to World war 2, suggesting Pershing's bellicose judgment was in error. But, ironically, one of the German soldiers who survived the war but may have been killed if Pershing had his way, was Corporal Adolf Hitler.
  Pershing was later questioned by a US Government committee about his decision to keep fighting right up to the Armistice, and he defended it on the grounds that he did not trust the Germans to surrender. (One would have thought that he could have waited to see, and dealt with that situation if it occurred.)

And so the terrible "war to end all wars" claimed its last unnecessary lives, truly a monument to human folly.

Private George Ellison, RIP. Photo: robk blog

sam harris - man of reason?

Sam Harris is rapidly making a name for himself - author of two books, outspoken atheist, critical of religion in the US, and now the founder of The Reason Project, a "nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society".

The project is definitely about the secular approach to reason, for which read "atheism", even militant atheism. Its advisory board includes a who's who of modern western militant atheism - Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Grayling, Weinberg, Coyne, Atkins, Pinker, Venter, and a few who may be presumed to be anti-religion - Salman Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. With a cast like that, one expects intelligent, even intellectual content, and scathing attacks on religion and superstition.

But what sort of person is Sam, the main man?

Harris has a bachelor's degree in philosophy and is current researching for a PhD in neuroscience. Wikipedia reports that he follows some practices (mainly meditation and control of "self") of Buddhism and Hinduism, but of course he does not believe the spiritual or superstitious aspects of those religions. And he has some outspoken views. Here are a few I have gleaned from the web.

The starting point for any summary is his atheism and criticism of religion, especially as practiced in the US. He argues that all beliefs should be based on reason, but religious beliefs are based on dogma and are anti-reason. He says no sensible person can believe many doctrines of christianity, and if an individual made up such beliefs we would think them "mad". He believes there is a taboo against arguing against religious belief, which is given too much respect, and that modern western civilisation's survival is threatened by religion, especially militant Islam. (All this from Wikipedia.)

All this is pretty standard militant atheist rhetoric these days, but some other aspects of Harris's views are attracting more criticism.

• In his book The End of Faith (page 52-53), he says: ”Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.” He has been much criticised for this, on the grounds that he is advocating killing people not for what they have done, but simply for what they believe. He claims he has been interpreted wrongly, but also argues that there is a strong link between belief and action, suggesting he really does mean what he says.
• In a chapter on Islam in the same book he says that if Islamic nations develop long range nuclear weapons, "the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own". He says (somewhat contradictorily) this would be "an unthinkable crime" but also "it may be the only course of action available to us" and calls such a pre-emptive strike "an unconscionable act of self-defense".
  
• Again in The End of Faith (p 199), Harris defends the use of torture, which "in certain circumstances, would seem to be not only permissible but necessary." He has copped a lot of criticism for this.
• Harris is part of a growing movement among militant atheists to argue that science and faith are so opposed that it is not possible for a good scientist to be a believer. Thus he has joined a chorus of criticism of President Barack Obama's appointment of Francis Collins to a senior science post, not because anyone disputes Collins' scientific credentials, but because he believes that he can't be a true scientist while holding religious beliefs that cannot be verified by science.
• In the same article, Harris suggests that it may be scientifically true that black Africans are less intelligent than other races, a view which has been labelled as both racist and scientifically in error.
  
• These views lead him to be opposed to freedom of conscience in religious belief: "I hope to show that the very ideal of religious tolerance—born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God—is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss.” This too has drawn strong criticism even from his fellow atheists (e.g. Margaret Wertheim and Michael Shermer), who say his intolerance is as damaging as the religious fanaticism he opposes (Wikipedia).
  

Harris's critics also query his logic and his scientific basis, and some apparently contradictory statements.

• His criticisms of religious belief as illogical and unproven seem inconsistent with his view of ethics: "the reliance on intuition, therefore, should be no more discomfiting for the ethicist than for the physicist." (EoF p. 183)
• His embracing of some aspects of eastern religions, even the suggestion that "there may even be some credible evidence for reincarnation" (EoF p. 242) has been criticised by many.
• Other critics argue that Harris doesn't apply scientific understanding in his criticisms of the harm done by religion ("scientifically baseless, psychologically uninformed, politically naïve, and counterproductive") and the motivations of suicide bombers (Harris's views are contradicted by research).
  

So those are some of the ideas of Sam Harris. They're perhaps less humanistic than one might expect and he seems to exhibit as much intolerance as reason. If I was an atheist, I wouldn't want Harris speaking on my behalf, but many people like him.

the genesis enigma - and the andrew parker enigma

This story is a shocker, no matter how you look at it.

It has all the ingredients to get people going. One of the UK's top young research scientists, an evolutionary biologist from Oxford University, whose main area of research is in the evolution of sight and the eye. A well-received book on that subject, In the Blink of an Eye. A mild atheist. His name is Andrew Parker.

Then he comes out and blows everyone away by writing a book called "the Genesis Enigma: the Hidden Science of Creation". In the US the title appears to be "The Genesis Enigma: Why the Bible is scientifically accurate".

Of course the atheists are incensed. This interview in The Metro is hardly sympathetic, and the internet discussion boards are full of statements like: "It's sad that some people have this time bomb in their heads that, when presented with enough complexity, explodes and makes them think all sorts of craziness" and "It sounds as though Professor Parker found himself a pair of Bible goggles. Everything looks different when you look at the world through your Bible goggles." Angry disbelievers drew comparisons with Antony Flew, a recent high profile defection from atheism.

But hard-core creationist christians can't rejoice too much, because Parker is still a strong evolutionist, and said in the interview: "Creationism is totally unfounded. It is as dangerous as fundamentalism in other religions." And more moderate christians who believe in theistic evolution look a little askance because he seems to have no understanding of their carefully worked out rules for interpreting Genesis.

so what's the book all about?

I haven't read it, but it appears that Parker has started from orthodox evolutionary science (not something creationists do) and then found some interesting parallels in the Genesis account of creation, which he has interpreted rather liberally. But he concludes that:

"It appears that the author of the creation account had predicted precisely the true history of the earth and life. The Genesis Enigma will explain that no human could have constructed a creation story in this way, particularly in Biblical times."

So Parker, once "leaned toward being an atheist" but "that’s changed during the writing of this book" - "it’s the strongest evidence for the existence of God I’ve come across." But exactly what he believes isn't clear just yet - perhaps not even to him, as he seems to be still working out his conclusions.

Whatever you think of this conclusion, he is clearly a brave man who is driven by what he believes is the evidence. He won't be popular among his scientific colleagues.

The MailOnline has a sympathetic and constructively critical review of the book, which credits Parker's intelligence and credentials in evolutionary biology, but questions his finding such detailed evidence for evolution in Genesis.

I think we can learn a lot when established patterns are challenged. We can watch with interest, and perhaps a little trepidation, how this turns out.

either you got faith or you got unbelief

"Either you got faith or you got unbelief" Bob Dylan, "Precious Angel"

A book recently released ("Losing my Religion: Unbelief in Australia" by Tom Frame) studies unbelief in Australia.

The book utilises census statistics on religious affiliation. Frame distinguishes between disbelief (a conscious rejection of belief) and unbelief (not so much a denial of God as an inability to believe in God). Frame suggests it is the latter who predominate in Australia at present, and for most of our history. He says that few Australians have deliberately rejected belief, most simply can't see why they need to be bothered with religion at all.

He is critical of the more militant on both sides of the debate: "Recent interactions between certain religious believers and unbelievers ..... have been remarkable for neither respect nor amity. I attribute the main sources of discord to conservative Protestants and positive atheists. Neither group seems able to accept the other's existence."

Frame recently spoke at a session on religion at the Sydney Writer's Festival. Here is one blogger's summary of what he had to say:

"Religion is not just about being religious; it explores the questions we all face: life, death, ethics/morality. In Australia, nearly 80% of the population believes in a divine entity, 63% define themselves as Christian, with 5% identifying as non-Christian religion or spirituality. So the big questions that are being asked in the public sphere are what does it mean to behave (with a community and within society more broadly). Church attendance (from 30% -> 4-5%) is not an indicator that people are no longer interested in religion; all organizations with an outward form of affiliation are in steady decline"

I think most of that we already knew, but the discussion of the issues by a sane and balanced writer is welcome.

near death experiences - could they be real?

We've all heard of them - people who are clinically dead for a while but are then revived, and who report experiencing things which their dormant brain should not be able to experience. There seem to be two main types of these near death experiences (NDEs):

1. People report travelling down a tunnel of light to a peaceful place, where they are met by a loved one who has died or a religious figure such as Jesus. After a short time in this blessed environment, they are reluctantly sent back to "real life", are revived from clinical death, and remember the experience.

For example, in 1964 famous comedian and actor Peter Sellers had a series of heart attacks. While his doctor tried to revive him, Sellers reports that he saw an "incredibly beautiful bright loving white light above me". "I know there was love, real love, on the other side of the light which was attracting me so much. It was kind and loving and I remember thinking That's God."

Sellers saw a hand reach through the light, and then a voice said: "It's not time. Go back and finish. It's not time." He felt himself return to his body and he woke up.

2. People can report details of what was happening while they were unconscious and clinically dead. Sometimes they observe the room from above, as if they were floating near the ceiling.

A famous example of this is Pam Reynolds, whose story is particularly amazing. Pam had a brain operation that entailed the doctors inducing cardiac arrest, her eyes taped shut and 95 decibel speakers placed in her ear canals, and the blood drained from her head. Despite all this, Pam was subsequently able to recall many minor details of what occurred while she was in this state, including conversations by the staff and the music being played in the theatre. These details were all confirmed by medical staff.

are these experiences real?

There are of course both believers and sceptics. The sceptics say that these experiences cannot possibly be real; either the stories are unreliable, or the people weren't really dead, or the experiences are the result of lack of oxygen and increased carbon dioxide in the brain.

On the other hand, researchers such as Drs Edward and Emily Kelly of the University of Virginia and Sam Parnia of the Weill Cornell Medical Centre have investigated many reports and say that the sceptics' explanations are quite inadequate.

so ..... ?

It seems to me that we might more easily dismiss the stories of visits to "heaven" to meet God or dead loved ones. These stories are generally unverifiable, they often reveal very different and contradictory aspects of the after-life and God, and the sceptical explanations may be more plausible. Even so, it is impossible to totally dismiss them.

However the stories where patients are known to be clinically dead (as far as modern medical science can determine) and their accounts of events in the operating theatre can be verified, are not easily dismissed, and the sceptical "explanations" so far seem weak.

So, perhaps these accounts "prove" there is life after death, but more likely they show that we still don't understand the relationship between consciousness and the brain. Perhaps there is indeed more to consciousness than what physical science so far understands.

the bible and modern science

I couldn't resist coming out of retirement for this.

The debate about religion vs science seems to be hotting up. In past centuries, many scientists were believers, and that is still true today. But those on the atheist side of science seem to be starting to press the point that science and religion don't mix, and that true scientists cannot hold religious beliefs because (they say) such beliefs are based on faith and not on reason. (Never mind that many believers offer reason-based explanations for their beliefs.)

An example of this is from fellow Aussie, Russell Blackford, in his blog Metaphysician and the Hellfire Club (great title!). In this post he claims that sacred writings like the Bible cannot be considered true in any sense because they don't contain accurate scientific information. He writes:

"if a god or angel or similar being has inspired the religion's poets and prophets, or dictated actual text for inclusion in its holy books, the god or angel (or whatever) could easily reveal such facts as the true age of the Earth, the fact that it revolves around the Sun, the fact that it is spherical and rotates on its axis, and the evolutionary origin of human beings."

This set my imagination running, as I envisaged Moses (about 1400BC and the traditional author of the first 5 books of the Bible) discussing science with his brother Aaron.

Moses: Hey Aaron, how do you spell "quark" in Hebrew?
Aaron: No idea. What do you want to know that for?
Moses: It's Yahweh again. Keeps telling all this strange stuff about strangeness and charm and spin, and quarks and gravitons and dark matter. I don't mind not understanding, but I need to know how to write this stuff down.
Aaron: Tell him we're just stone-age goat-herders living a subsistence existence, and you're the only one who can read and write. Ask Him for something simpler, like why does the sun rise every morning?

Moses goes away up Mt Sinai, and returns 3 days later.

Moses: He says the sun doesn't rise in the morning, its the earth moving.
Aaron: I've felt the earth move once or twice (snigger), but not usually in the morning!
Moses: Nothing like that bro', we live on a giant ball, and it goes round and round on its axis, and that makes the sun look like it's moving.
Aaron: What's a ball?
Moses: Dunno, bro', I asked him that and he started to talk about radii and something called a pie, and the number 3.1412, but then he said "forget it!" and muttered under his breath about next time I'll just say 3.
Aaron: Did he tell you anything else?
Moses: Two more things. One was that when he said we came from the dust of the ground he meant we had gradually evolved for billions of years.
Aaron: What's billions?
Moses: Dunno mate, but I think it's a number greater than two.
Aaron: What does evolved mean?
Moses: He says it actually took him more than 6 days to make all this. I told him I didn't really care how long he took, I wasn't in any hurry.
Aaron: What was the other thing you learnt?
Moses: He said that one day people would find it easier to believe all this came about by chance than believe in him. I said, no, I was willing to believe all the other crazy stuff about quarks and pie if He said so, but I couldn't come at that!
Aaron: What did he say then?
Moses: He said, let's start again. Just write this down: "In the beginning, God made the heavens and the earth" And I said, that's more like it, now you're talking my language! He just smiled and said, thanks.

the last post?

Photo: Australian Government

I started this blog almost two years ago, as an experiment. I've made 150+ posts in two years, which is 1-2 per week. It's been fun, I've learnt a lot (both about blogging and from the research I've done to prepare the posts) and I've had some interesting comments.

But I think I've run my race. There are supposedly a hundred million blogs out there, so what distinguishes mine to make it interesting to anyone?

So this may be the last post. I will leave the blog online for a while, because people still find their way to it from the search engines, and because it contans some information useful to me. And if something moves me enough, I may post on it. But don't hold your breath.

So if anyone reads this, and for those who've visited over the two years, thanks for reading and best wishes.

atheists and buses (again)

Not long ago I reported on the atheist bus advertising in the UK, with the somewhat underwhelming slogan: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and get on with your life."

Now the Sydney Morning Herald reports "Atheist message misses local bus", with similarly underwhelming messages: "Sleep in on Sunday mornings" and "Celebrate reason". Most Australians already do the first, and the second seems to contradict itself by giving no reasons. I could wholeheartedly support both of them.

But their advertising campaign has unfortunately been run over by a bus. The outdoor advertising company APN Outdoor has declined to accept their business without giving any reason. The atheists suggest freedom of speech is at stake, but it hardly seems free to force a company to take on a commercial job it chooses not to.

Perhaps the company wanted to avoid some unfortunate juxtapositions ....

houses to save the world

We all know something's got to give. In Australia, our houses are getting bigger (and uglier) while our families are getting smaller. Petrol consumption and greenhouse gases are increasing as cities sprawl and large houses require air conditioning. Our economic standard of living is rising and many in the developing world want a piece of the action.

One part of the solution is surely more environmentally friendly houses, which means smaller, better designed, energy efficient, carbon-neutral, water efficient, solar-powered buildings made of renewable materials. Or at least some of these.

The exciting thing is that it is slowly beginning to happen, even if only on an experimental level or by die-hard greenies, and the designs are attractive and interesting too. Take a look at these "green houses" - perhaps my favourite is this New Zealand house built from old shipping containers.

Photo: Jetson Green blog

Check out more photos of the shipping container house, plus a house in Japan with polycarbonate walls, a passive solar urban kit home, office space and artists' studios in old railway carriages on building rooftops in London, and this house from an old barn in Belgium.

You're probably the same as me, unlikely to make a move from where you're currently living. But surely somewhere here is the way of the future.

the best time to be alive?

When was the best time to be alive?

I've always thought I had pretty much the best of it - born at the end of World War 2, living when our western societies were becoming increasingly wealthy and jobs were easy to come by, and growing into adulthood during the 1960's when there was plenty of idealism and good music (for me, Bob Dylan represented both of those). So I missed the war and the depression, but also missed the pressure of today's mad rush to get a university place and a job while avoiding drugs and depression and shallow relationships.

But Michael Duffy, writing in the Sydney Morning Herald, reckons differently. He thinks "the luckiest generation" was the one before mine, which was born in the 1930s. This is how he figures it:

• They missed the great Depression and were too young to serve in the war.
• They would have been buying houses in the 1960s, when, in relation to household income, they cost a third what they do today.
• Society was more stable. "The divorce rate increased in the mid-'70s, a period when crime, single parenthood and chronic forms of mental and physical illness also started to boom. In the '60s only 3 per cent of working age Australians depended on welfare. That figure was to rise to about 16 per cent." Job insecurity also increased.
• He says welfare and tax policies have been shown to have most favoured this generation, especially in retirement.
• Social researcher Hugh Mackay has found that this generation has stronger values: "loyalty, saving, the work ethic, the sense of mutual obligation, and patriotism". These helped them cope less selfishly with the prosperity of the 1960s than a later generation dealt with the prosperity of the 1990s.
• "There has been a sharp increase in fear of all kinds in recent decades", and people have grown less happy. The less stable society, loss of values and decline in religion have all been suggested as reasons for this.

I'm still not sure I agree. Studies indicate that despite the negatives Duffy mentions, Australians are, on average, pretty much just as happy as we were a decade ago and half a century ago, and it is the same generally right around the world. But we are agreed that it is tougher growing up and living today than back then.

atheist says christianity is good

These days it's not uncommon to read articles in which outspoken atheists angrily denounce how christianity causes terrible trouble in the world. So it's both surprising and refreshing to read a strong atheist express the opposite conclusion.

Matthew Parris, writing in The Times (As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God), explains that he grew up in Africa, in Malawi (then known as Nyasaland), and recently had the opportunity to re-visit. Christian missionaries bring much needed aid and assistance to African communities, and although he used to disagree with the spiritual teachings, he welcomed the good works. "...only the severest kind of secularist could see a mission hospital or school and say the world would be better without it."

But both then and now, he noticed that, by nature, many Africans seem passive, unwilling to work for positive change. They give too much respect to leaders, even if they are unjust and brutal, and those still under the influence of tribal religions live in fear and superstition.

But conversion to christianity changes all that, he says - "it liberates". And so he argues that practical help (schools, hospitals, emergency aid, etc) is not enough, the whole African belief system "must ... be supplanted". Africa "needs God".

This leads this obviously honest atheist to a surprising conclusion: "Removing Christian evangelism from the African equation may leave the continent at the mercy of a malign fusion of Nike, the witch doctor, the mobile phone and the machete."

The article is well worth a read, and reinforces a similar conclusion by another atheist journalist, Roy Hattersley, several years ago.

history wars

Science is so often the battleground between atheism and christianity (and other beliefs too), but unfortunately history is not exempt. I have discussed the historical arguments about Jesus, but other aspects of history are also part of the battle.

The arguments arise because some atheists wish to discredit christianity by arguing that the church has oppressed people and opposed science at every turn. Thus it is argued that Hitler was a christian, or at least strongly influenced by christianity, the conquistadores were likewise christian, etc.

There is no doubt much that the church, and by association, christians, have in their history to be deeply ashamed about and sorry for, but many of the arguments which find their way onto the web are just plain wrong.

One argument (apparently) is the claim that attempts by nineteenth century Scottish doctor, James Simpson, to introduce the use of chloroform to relieve pain during childbirth, were opposed by blinkered churchmen. A historian has examined the matter, and found that there is no record of the church opposing Simpson, who was a devout christian, and there were many in the church who supported him. But someone made an unsupported and erroneous claim about Simpson's experience, and it was quoted and re-quoted until it became accepted "fact".

In due course I'll examine a few other historical arguments to see how they stand up.

faith & science @ christmas

I've referred to a number of discussions and books about the supposed "war" between faith and science. But here's an article in the UK Daily Mail about scientists who see no conflict.

The writer starts with the astronauts on the Apollo 8 mission, which orbited the moon but did not land, who on their public radio broadcast back from the 'far side of the moon' read portions of the creation story from the book of Genesis, concluding with the words "and God saw that it was good", then signed off with "And we close with good night, good luck, a Merry Christmas - and God bless all of you, all of you on the good Earth".

Oxford particle physicist turned theologian John Polkinghorne, Oxford mathematician John Lennox, biologist Pauline Rudd from University College Dublin, and Stuart Burgess, Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Bristol University, are all quoted on how they see faith and science as complementary.

It's all pretty brief, but worth a look.

schoolies, red frogs and all that

Every year, in what has become a traditional rite of passage, thousands of teens who have just completed their schooling, descend on a number of beachside locations and generally go nuts. The biggest location is "Surfers", the beachside location of Surfers Paradise south of Brisbane.

It's almost a coming of age ritual, a way of celebrating the end of the tension of completing the Higher School Certificate, and, for some, a way to party until they drop. It's called "Schoolies", or "Schoolies week". And along with the fun comes the inevitable problems - drunkenness, drugs, high-spirited behaviour gone wrong, accidents, even exploitation by sexual predators. Local communities can benefit financially, but can still be wary of the cost.

A decade ago, a Brisbane church wanted to do something to help the kids have their fun, but provide support from those at risk. And so Red Frogs was born, and it has now grown to a nationwide movement with almost 2000 volunteers, 9 tonnes of confectionery, and a big welcome from schoolies and local communities.

No doubt the system varies a little in different places, but it basically involves:

• young volunteers spending a week or two living in the big schoolies locations - in many cases, they live in the same hotels and apartments as the kids and act as "hotel chaplains";
• the volunteers give out Red Frogs (this year donated by Nestle who makes them), a confectionery popular with the kids, make pancakes, hold BBQs, clean rooms and generally make positive contact with the kids;
• the stay up late and walk kids home who might otherwise be incapable of getting there themselves, or who might be vulnerable, and are on call to help out in any way necessary;
• on occasions, they are able to intervene in more serious situations, such as illness, accident or attempted suicide.

From all reports, the Red Frogs teams are well received and well respected. Some of the schoolies find the week away isn't exactly what they wanted, and the Red Frogs team can provide welcome relief which can develop into ongoing friendships. It's a great example of christian kids putting their faith into practice by doing something that is seriously useful.

Check out the Red Frogs website, the Citipoint church Red Frogs page, and reports by national and local media.

the ice retreat continues

Climate change continues to present a challenge. The argument over its reality continues, but the converts continue to outnumber the sceptics. And the world economic situation gives the realists one more reason for caution.

But the alarming data continues to mount. Among the latest news is the retreat of the Arctic ice, with the mimimum summer area in 2007 the lowest ever recorded (see graph). While some say that we've been there before, researchers say this is not just a cyclic fluctuation. Rather, the loss of ice reduces the reflection of solar heat, increasing the heat retained, and hastening the rise in local sea temperatures, thus creating a vicious circle. The future may well be worse than the graph suggests.

Data taken from BBC report

Scientists are predicting that the arctic may be ice-free in summer in less than a decade, which will have enormous environmental consequences and will threaten many arctic species. As you'd expect, there are business interests that oppose doing very much about the problem; in fact some fear that human interference in the area can only increase as the ice reduces.

trends (3): crime

I think most people living in major cities feel crime is more threatening than it used to be, but statistics suggest otherwise. Recent statistics for New South Wales reveal that the occurrence of most of the defined "major crime" categories are either stable or falling over the past two years. For example:

• domestic violence assault was down 8%, the first fall for more than a decade;
• assault with firearm was down 26%, and with other weapons was down 18%;
• many other forms of theft were also slightly down.
  

The only major crime area which has shown an increase is fraud, up by 19%, and almost half of this is due to theft of petrol when service station patrons do not pay. It seems that whenever petrol prices rise, petrol theft rises correspondingly.

Some categories of crime (e.g. drug use) are not included in the "major crime" categories, because they are victimless crimes and not reported, therefore the statistics reflect the effectiveness of law enforcement as much as criminal behaviour. Drug use is generally increasing.