the good, the bad and the ugly

Religion can bring out the best, and unfortunately the worst, in people ....

the good

The Sydney Morning Herald recently reported on Catherine Hamlin and her late husband Reg, both doctors, who have given the entire working lives helping women in Ethiopia who suffer from terrible birth injuries.

Often giving birth at a very young age, and in unhealthy conditions without medical help, these girls suffer from incontinence caused by the injuries (fistulas), which makes them socially ostracised. The Hamlins performed thousands of operation to restore good health since they went to Africa in the 1960s.

Several Fistula hospitals have been built, and Catherine, now 84, is leading a campaign to train and send out Ethiopian midwives to villages all over the country. The couple's motivation came from the words of Jesus: "Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me." Catherine says: "I do believe this is a God-given job".

the bad

The same issue of the SMH reported on a christian school in Australia which has been accused of defrauding the Government of $2M by falsifying enrolments to attract greater subsidies.

I won't give any further details because I don't want to be a gossip, and because the matter has not been resolved legally, but reportedly the principal has been sacked and the school closed.

These things just shouldn't happen. We christians need to learn that the ends never justify bad means, and that if we trust God, we should never need to cut corners.

the ugly

Christians face persecution from other religions in many places over the world:

• In Sri Lanka, a Christian pastor was shot dead in February, and since then a "wave" of attacks, including burning a church down, attacks by armed mobs, stony and threats, have been made against Christians.
• Violence against Christians in India is increasing, according to a UN representative; in many cases police are complicit or turning a blind eye. Hindu extremists have reacted in recent years to the conversion of former Hindus to Christianity - efforts to free the low Dalit caste from oppression have been particularly effective and resented.
• In Palestine, itself suffering in the ongoing "war" between Islamic militants and Israel, Christians have been murdered abused and intimidated, leading to an exodus of Christians from the country.
• Christians in Iran face imprisonment, harassment and discrimination in Iran, despite being guaranteed religious freedom in law.
• A recent court ruling in Malaysia that a woman did not have the right to convert from Islam to another religion has alarmed religious minorities in that country.

We in the west need to be careful about being too judgmental about these problems - after all similar acts are in our heritage. Humility and tolerance all round would be a start!

Sources for information include Christian Solidarity Worldwide, International Christian Concern, United Nations and Amnesty International.

earth hour, 2008

Last year, Sydney switched off many its lights as people joined in the first Earth Hour.

This year, cities and smaller settlements from scores of countries joined in. By all accounts it has been a great success. It's only a symbolic event, but awareness and willingness to change are the first steps.

Sydney city centre during Earth Hour. (Photo: Sydney Morning Herald)

Power generation represents one major source of carbon emissions (I've seen figures like 30%, but it would surely vary a lot), so cutting electricity usage by 5%, as was estimated in Sydney, is only token, but still symbolic.

Earth Hour at the local Anglican church - learning how to make simple changes
- when will someone invent a candle-powered data projector? : )

Of course the challenge is to turn this growing public goodwill into effective action, something our politicians often seem to struggle with. There are so many who say how large the problem is, but the economic costs of not acting will be even greater - the Stern report and other sources quoted by the European Union estimate that the cost of not acting now on climate change will be about 5-20% of global GDP, whereas the cost of acting will be less than 1% of GDP.

"All" it will take is for all of us to be willing to vote for, and continue to support, politicians who will make the painful decisions that will cost us now, to save our children and grandchildren far more. Surely we can do that much?

new generations and religious belief

Some recent studies have given interesting insights into the impact of religious belief on younger Australians.

One study by the Australian Catholic and Monash universities found the following beliefs among Aussie teenagers (aged 13 to 17):

• 47% said they were Christians, although only 17% were active in their faith,
• 31% had no religious belief,
• 15% had new age beliefs, and
• 7% had other beliefs.

The same study also found that "those with serious spiritual and religious beliefs were likely to donate more money, participate more in their communities and be more concerned about their society than their non-religious counterparts."

The press release for the study says: "Noting that strong engagement with a belief system is related to good citizenship, the authors pose the question: where will young people of the future learn civic values and a commitment to the common good? Who, apart from parents, is going to pass these values on to them and lead them to participate in community service?"

A University of Queensland study has found that only 8% of young adults attend church weekly. Among young adults, "Moving away from traditional religious beliefs to trendy, self-focused religions and spirituality is not making young adults happier."

Causes of lower happiness include greater risk of poor mental health and anti-social behaviour, and higher levels of anxiety and depression. "Their focus on self-fulfillment and self-improvement and the lack of emphasis on others' wellbeing appears to have the potential to undermine a person's mental health and social relationships.”

one Flew out of the cuckoo's nest?

Whatever famous people do is news. And if a famous person makes a spectacular change of direction, others take notice. So when longtime atheist and philosopher, Antony Flew, said a few years ago that he was re-considering whether there is a God, people reacted.

Flew, the son of a British clergyman, had studied at Oxford and participated in the Socratic Society, a philosophical discussion group founded by famous christian, CS Lewis. Flew embraced atheism, and had a long and distinguished career as a philosopher in several British universities, and as an author. While never as strongly anti-religion as some well known atheists today, Flew had represented atheism in debates and discussions, and was possibly the premier philosophical atheist of the English speaking world.

So when Flew spoke of his doubts about atheism, Christian friends who had been discussing these matters with him for years continued the discussion. Atheist, Richard Carrier, wrote him several letters urging him to hold the atheist line. Prominent christians and atheists (perhaps foolishly) made claims and counter claims about Flew's "real" views, and Flew himself gave somewhat enigmatic replies.

Nevertheless, for a while, it seemed that Flew had heeded Carrier's pleas, and ceased to question his disbelief, but late last year, Flew dropped a bombshell. His latest book was released (he is co-author) and it is titled "There is a God".

Christians welcomed it and atheists were shocked. Amazingly (perhaps) most of the discussion since then has not been on the merits of the case Flew presents for his change of mind, but whether he was of sound mind. Based mostly on an interview Flew gave to a New York Times reporter, atheists argued that their former spokesperson was confused, misled by christians, failing in memory and possibly senile. Accusations that the book was not Flew's writing, but someone else's released under Flew's name, were made, only to be rebutted by Flew - most of the thoughts were his, he said, and most of the words were his co-author's.

It does seem that Flew's memory and strength are failing - he admits it himself (he is now in his 80s) - but it also seems certain that he has changed his views. He has always said that he was not a dogmatic atheist, he would follow wherever the evidence led him, and that he regularly reviewed his beliefs. Many say this, but it seems he actually believes it! Whatever the merits or otherwise of his reasons, it seems arrogant and insensitive of atheists to attack his integrity rather than address his arguments.

So what are the arguments that convinced him? I haven't read the book yet, but reviews indicate the main reasons were the fact that nature (our universe) exists, that nature obeys such rational and well-ordered laws, and that human beings are so rational and purpose driven. He concludes that “the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence”.

Currently he is unwilling to believe in any established religion (he describes himself as a deist - someone who believes in a God who is not active in the world), but he says that christianity is the best candidate and is currently reviewing the evidence for it. He has included in an appendix a discussion of the resurrection of Jesus (a subject he has many times debated with christians), written by New Testament scholar NT Wright.

Cuckoos are birds which lay their eggs in other birds' nests, so they don't actually have nests of their own. Has Antony Flew finally found his true home?

Read about the book There is a God, a review of the book by a christian, the interview in the New York Times, comments by Richard Carrier and comments by another christian..

death of a great pioneer

Larry Norman, pioneer christian musician, died early this week at age 61.

I was a Larry Norman fan. In the 1960s, when rock music was in one of its most innovative phases, with great artists like the Beatles, Dylan, Van Morrison, Yes, Jethro Tull, the Beach Boys, Eric Clapton, Jefferson Airplane, etc, christian music was back in the 1950s, with some wimpish gospel country sort of stuff. (I guess there was some good black gospel, but I never heard it.)

Enter Larry Norman, with some good, though not great music, but with superbly crafted words and attitude. He blazed the way for others to follow (though I'm pretty sure he would have hated the too nice, predictable, middle-of-the-road and big money thing christian music has become). He became a leader in the post-hippie Jesus movement and christian counter-culture. But in the end, his attitude probably brought him undone, as he was difficult to get on with (they say) and he alienated the christian establishment. In the past two decades, he was often badly unwell and he didn't produce much music of note.

Here's a sample of his lyrics, illustrating his blend of faith and politics (it's from "The Great American Novel" on the 1972 album "Only Visiting This Planet", but it some of it sounds eerily current):

you kill a black man at midnight just for talking to your daughter
then you make his wife your mistress and you leave her without water
and the sheet you wear upon your face is the sheet your children sleep on
at every meal you say a prayer that you don't believe but still you keep on

and your money says "in God we trust", but its against the law to pray in school
you say we beat the russians to the moon, and i say you starved your children to do it

you are far across the ocean in a war that's not your own
and while you're winning theirs you're gonna lose the one at home
do you really think the only way to bring about the peace
is to sacrifice your children and kill all your enemies

you say all men are equal, all men are brothers
then why are the rich more equal than others
don't ask me for the answers i've only got one
that a man leaves his darkness when he follows the son

Farewell Larry, I'll see you "in another land".

Read an obituary here and the notice on his website.

super-size me - and my ambulance

Obesity is increasing! One not so little indication of this is that the state of New South Wales is doubling (from 3 to 6) its fleet of "mega-lift ambulances", which are designed to carry people weighing more than 180 kgs and too large to fit in a normal ambulance.

It is estimated that the economic cost of obesity to the Australian health system is about $873 million per year.

Read the Sydney Morning Herald report here.

a well documented miracle?

In August last year (miracles happen?) I reported several cases of apparent healing miracles. I have done a little more checking up of one of these, and found some independent news reports.

The case concerned a Florida USA heart specialist and a man who failed to respond to emergency treatment after a massive heart attack, and was pronounced dead. But after a "voice" in his head told him to pray for the man, the heart specialist did so and the man revived.

The apparent miracle was first recorded by the International Press Association and on several christian websites, including the World Christian Doctors Network (which gave no details), and ASSIST. But when I found that some people won't accept a miracle account from a christian source, I checked out some secular accounts - the American College of Radiology, Fox News WSVN7, Florida, Fox News and Palm Beach Daily News archive.

These accounts give some extra information (although the reporting is not always clear) and include an interview with the healed man. I am trying to find further info to provide further verification.

Please let us know you've visited, and tell us what you think, by leaving a comment using the link below.

sorry

I have blogged before (don't drink the water) about the poor treatment received by Australia's indigenous peoples at the hands of the European settlers (or should we call them "invaders"?) over two centuries. One of the grossest injustices was the forced removal of children from parents over the first three quarters of the 20th century.

It has been recognised for some time that reconciliation is needed, and one of the things most sought by the indigenous people was an apology from the Government - the simple word "sorry".

The Government has baulked at this for some time, but last November a new Government was elected, and today, to the joy of most indigenous and non-indigenous Australians, the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, apologised and said "sorry". And he did it so well, sincerely, humanely and without qualification.

There are many who believe and hope that aboriginal Australians can now enter a new era as a result. It has been a good day for Australia.

Read a news report about the Prime Minister's apology.

hate, hate, hate?

Are we getting angrier and more hateful? Or have we always been the same? See what you think about these three examples .....

hate 1

Christians are supposed to be following a religion of love and forgiveness, but sometimes they seem to forget this. One example of this is the homophobic behaviour of some American Christians. It seems that some US Christians' hatred of gays over-rides Jesus' teaching on loving even your enemies.

Some years ago, I saw (I think on a Michael Moore TV show) a funeral of a gay man who had died of AIDS. Standing across the road was a pack of Christians with signs saying hateful (and I believe inaccurate) things like "God hates faggots" and "AIDS cures homosexuality". It made me feel angry and disgusted at the insensitivity and the distortion of Jesus' teachings.

Just last week, I saw something almost as bad - a young Christian girl responding to actor Heath Ledger's death by arguing he was in hell because he played a gay man in the film "Brokeback Mountain".

Regardless of whether we think homosexual behaviour is acceptable to God or not, it seems these people have missed the point, and their actions are promoting hatred rather than God's good news.

hate 2

Militant atheism has become more prominent in recent years, possibly partly in reaction to the Christian hatred reported above. But unfortunately it too has led to a rise of intolerance and even hatred.

Go to an atheist website or read the posts on an atheist forum, and you may find a lot that is unattractive and even nasty. Christians are "delusional" to hold the beliefs they do and they use no logic, so rude and confrontational behaviour is justified against them. Try to mount a logical argument against these views and you'll likely find your argument dismissed in derogatory terms, with very little logic and evidence. Their view appears to have become as much an item of blind faith as the religious views they are reacting against.

Some enthusiasts seem to be itching to go further. Here are a few quotes:

• "I feel that derision is a more powerful rhetorical technique than simple confrontation."
• "religion is an intellectual desease [sic] and we must find a cure"
• "Treat their ideas with respect and they might mistake your actions for a belief that they have any merit whatsoever. I see no reason even to give them that much. These people need to be educated and cured of their delusions, not pandered to...... I have no time for this wishy-washy nonsense."
• "I'm not a mental health professional. Though I might think theists of most stripes could do with seeing one."
• "To call holders of such beliefs delusional is to be unnecessarily kind."
• "Do you really not see how desperate your position is. You don't want to appear delusional by admitting you believe in talking snakes, but you know in your heart you are. I don't think you are capable of being honest with yourself"

hate 3

Ann Coulter is an American political commentator. I'd never heard of her before, but apparently she is famous, or perhaps notorious. She says she likes to "stir up the pot", but some of her reported comments seem nastier than that. For example:

• she called the Democratic party "the spawns of Satan"
• she said of Democrat candidate John Edwards: "you have to go into rehab if you use the word "faggot" so I'm - kind of at an impasse..."
• and she said of four women whose husbands died in the World Trade Centre attacks: "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much"

Of course, these days, getting noticed by being controversial is the strategy of some media people, but I don't believe that justifies such language.

So is it just me, or are we enjoying tearing apart people we disagree with these days? Is hate too strong a word? It seems that we are seeing things in black and white, them and us, the goodies and the baddies. It makes it easier to justify our position if we can demonise our opponents and make them out to be almost inhuman. And that approach has led to some terrible things in the past.

I think it is important to make a deliberate stand against all this.

science, open minds and wild guesses

I've just returned from holidays, when I did a bit of reading on the "finely tuned universe" (see my blog, was it all planned?).

In brief, science has discovered a number of areas where the laws or facts of cosmology seem to be exactly right to allow the universe to develop as it has, and only miniscule variations would have prevented the universeas we know it from existing, and certainly prevented the development of life on earth. It seems to be highly improbable that this could have happened by chance.

Some scientists simply ask the question why, some argue that these facts demonstrate the God exists, others argue that the facts can be explained without God.

One argument suggests that it is both wrong in theory and impossible in practice to draw any conclusions about the probability of a universe being "well designed" - see for example this paper.

Despite this, well qualified scientists have had a go:

• Oxford mathematician and cosmologists Roger Penrose, who worked with Stephen Hawking in developing understanding of black holes, has estimated that the odds of all of these scientific facts being 'just right', as they are, are 1 in 10^10^123 - that's 10 raised to the power of 10 to the power of 123, a number so large it cannot be written out, so large that the odds are effectively zero. i.e. Penrose was saying that the universe could not possibly have happened by chance. (It is worth noting that Penrose is coy about the question of whether he believes in God, but it would appear that he is not part of any conventional religion.)

• On the other hand, Victor Stenger, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Hawaii, and an atheist, has examined the question via a computer simulation and concluded (in a paper) that if four of the most important variables are allowed to take up a large range (plus or minus 10 orders of magnitude), it is more than 50% likely that a viable universe (one that would last for at least a billion years) could form.

It would be an understatement to say that these two views are very different! We might explain some of the difference by the fact that Stenger's model and criteria are very limited - e.g. he only considers 4 out of perhaps 15 constants, his ranges are small compared to the possible ranges, and that surviving a billion years without any reference to what form the universe takes is not a very useful criterion. We might suspect that atheist Stenger doesn't approach the question with an open mind, whereas Penrose may. We may also conclude that Penrose has the better scientific credentials.

But having said all that, what do we make of such an impossibly vast difference in the conclusions of two well qualified scientists applying their science to this question. At the very least, it's a challenge to scientific objectivity on this subject.

it's just not cricket?

Photo: Morguefile. The Australian team at a Sydney match in happier times.

Cricket has been one of Australia's most popular summer sports for more than a century. It is supposed to be a polite game, played in the spirit of English gentlemen, but over the years it has had its share of controversies.

It began as a pastime for gentlemen, who played for fun and honour, not money, but money and gambling have long been part of cricket. And in the past few decades, it has become increasingly professional. Although players cannot earn nearly as much as professional golfers and tennis players, cricket provides a good income for the select few, and in many countries an escape from poverty.

Unfortunately, with increasing professionalism has come a deterioration in behaviour. Sledging (abusing the opponent, often in an attempt to gain a psychological advantage - I think sometimes called "trash talking" in the US) has become common, and the occasional source of confrontation between players.

For the past decade or more, Australia's cricket team has been pretty much the best in the world - and pretty much the worst at sledging.

It's no surprise therefore that things came to a head in the recent match in Sydney against India, a side not far behind Australia in ability and with a bit of form in sledging. Some poor umpiring decisions, some sledging by both sides, a close result (Australia won a five day match in the last 10 minutes) and some bad sportsmanship almost led to India cancelling the rest of the tour.

Interestingly, and perhaps surprisingly, the Australian sporting public seemed to agree with the Indians that the Aussie team had lost its way and had developed an unsportsmanlike culture.

Defence of the team, by some noted former players and the team captain was based on the concept that Australia play it hard but fair, and there was nothing to criticise in that. But critics feel that the team has failed to see the difference between playing hard and being unpleasant. The first is in the spirit of cricket, but the second is not.

Competitiveness, abuse, bending the rules (including illegal drug-taking) and ego are all unfortunate parts of modern sport, but most Australians feel that cricket should rise above most of this. If the players can't help succumbing, probably the rules will have to be amended to legislate a better standard of personal behaviour - a pity, but better than the alternative.

Is the world of 2008 a better place than the world of 1958? Hard to say, but it's doubtful that the world of sport is better mannered. And it seems likely that the stars' bad behaviour rubs off on the kids who are such avid fans.

Read about the cricket "crisis" from respected journalist and former English county captain Peter Roebuck, plus previous columns on the bad taste left by the match and his calls for the Australian captain to be sacked.

'twas the night before christmas .....

Inner & Outer Space tends to concentrate on human foibles and things we need to learn to do better. But at Christmas time, we need some good news. Of course there's the best news of all, the good news of forgiveness and new life that was the original source of Christmas, but is there anything else?

I came across some interesting figures in the Sydney Morning Herald today. Paul Sheehan, at the end of an article mostly about other things looks at statistics on global poverty. And using either of two standard measures, the situation is at least improving, and rapidly.

• If poverty is measured by those whose income is no more than $US1 per day, then the percentage of people worldwide living in poverty declined from 15.4% in 1970 to 5.7% in 2000. When the rising world population is factored in, the numerical decline was 43%, from 540 million to 310 million.
• If an alternative measure of poverty is used, of $US3 per day, the decline was from 47% to 21%, with about 400 million people rescued from poverty in 30 years.

Either way, we can feel very pleased.

However much more needs to be done. The great majority of those released from poverty live in east Asia, but Africa remains a real problem. And we can all do something - maybe sponsor a child in Africa?

Here are a few suitable organisations:

• Compassion
• Children International
• Foster Parents Plan
• World Vision
• Save the Children
• TEAR Fund

Merry Christmas and best wishes to all who read this.

P.S. It may be 20:13 on December 23 in Blogger time, but in Australia it's just after 3:00 pm on Christmas Eve.

dawkins vs god - the latest score

Richard Dawkins has long been a popular science writer, but has achieved a greater level of public recognition through his book, The God Delusion. He has stated that his aim in writing the book is to lead readers to disbelief in any god.

I'm not sure how well he's succeeded in that, but he's certainly generated loads of reaction, both positive and negative - newspaper articles, interviews, a zillion blogs, and several books in reply. I have referred to Alister McGrath's two books previously, and now another book has been published: Darwin's Angel by John Cornwell from Cambridge University.

I have not read either Dawkins' book nor Cornwell's, but I am interested here more in the public reaction and debate.

When confronted with a wide range of strongly-held opinions, I usually downplay the views of those at either end of the debate (we all know what militant atheists and fundamentalist christians will think about Dawkins and his critics), and look for fair-minded people closer to the centre, or people who are willing to criticise their own viewpoint or see merit in the opposition.

Thus it is easy to find strong atheist criticism of Cornwell (they think he's too cute by half, playing the man and not the ball, misrepresents Dawkins, or simply presents weak arguments) - these Amazon reviews, these comments on the Richard Dawkins website and this blog contain some of this. But is not so easy finding christian supporters, perhaps because Cornwell is more of an agnostic or liberal Catholic rather than an evangelical christian.

But, although there are those who are underwhelmed by or have mixed feelings about Cornwell's book, most of those closer to the middle, including journalists, and fair-minded atheists and theists, seem to be fairly consistent in their support of Cornwell's critique of Dawkins. The following seem to be the main criticisms (Wikipedia provides a useful summary of Cornwell's points):

• Dawkins tends to judge all theists using the worst excesses and extremes he can find, which is not what we should expect from a world class scientist.
• He tends to blame religion for all of the world's ills, when studies show that many apparently religious conflicts and acts of terrorism are in fact motivated by national and racial issues.
• Dawkins' understanding of philosophy, theology and sociology seem to be at a very low undergraduate level at best, leading him to miss or distort much of the evidence and to propose ideas that have been shown to be incorrect.
• Dawkins uses extreme, almost fanatical language himself, leaving scientific objectivity far behind, and verging on promoting hate and derision towards believers, who he presents as, in a sense, diseased and delusional.

These criticisms echo comments by many thoughtful people, including even some of Dawkins' fellow atheists:

• The lack of balance and evidence in Dawkins' assessment of religion is criticised by prominent humanist Richard Norman, respected journalist William Rees Mogg and journalist Salley Vickers in the Times Online.
• The lack of scholarship is highlighted by biology & anthropology professor, David Sloane Wilson, professor of English Terry Eagleton, and professor of biology H Allen Orr quoted in a previous post.

Dawkins has not, of course, been silent, and his responses include this response to Cornwell's book, this reply to David Sloane Wilson, and this general reflection. He has argued that it is not necessary to be well-read in theology because that is the study of something non-existent.

So what's the score?

It seems that Dawkins has succeeded in putting "strong atheism" well into the public consciousness, in providing reluctant cultural christians with support for their move into more overt disbelief, and stirred up the believers. Few people are convinced by rational argument to change their beliefs (just ask christian evangelists and apologists), but he may also have succeeded in promoting a more subtle change in our culture, strengthening the irreligious prevailing view.

On the other hand, the responses from McGrath, Cornwell and others are also likely to strengthen the conviction of many believers, and Dawkins' own belligerence seems to be a turn-off for many agnostics, in this age of postmodern tolerance.

I think the militant atheism wars have a good way to run yet, and it's probably too soon to call, but I'm guessing he will have had some small wins in the short term, but may prove a bit of a storm in a teacup in the longer term.

Read a summary of the current state of play in the atheism vs theism war from the Australian newspaper.

the very weird world of quantum physics

Quantum physics goes against a lot of what we "know" to be true, and has long fascinated me (in a very non-expert kind of way!).

Quantum physics deals with atomic and sub-atomic particles and radiation, and the relationship between them. The word "quantum" (= "a small discrete unit of energy or mass") is based on the fact that radiation, such as light, while generally regarded as a continuous wave, can be considered to be composed of discrete energy packets which behave like particles.

There are many curious aspects of quantum physics which seem very unusual, even impossible:

• In the world we experience every day, things are solid, and they are either in one place or another. But in the quantum world, things are composed of very small particles surrounded by relatively large spaces, and we cannot be sure where a particle may be - we can only say where it probably will be (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle).
• In our world, things are there whether we know about them or not. The tree really does crash down in the forest, whether anyone sees it, hears it or cares, or not. But in the quantum world, things aren't necessarily "there" until we observe them - and when we observe them we change them. And if we measure some aspects of a particle (say its position) we may be unable to measure other aspects (say its velocity) - it just can't be done.
• In the "normal" world, things happen because of detectable cause and effect. You push a barrow and it moves, don't push it and it stays still - and if you are too far away from it, you can't push it. But in the quantum world, action can happen "at a distance", with no discernible connecting forces. Particles which have once become "entangled" (they have each been created or affected by some process which leads to them being linked) remain linked even across great distances, so that what happens to one will affect what happens to the other, even if there is no physical connection between them. It's impossible, but it's been proved to occur.

The combination of these and other findings of quantum physics can lead to bizarre outcomes, where measuring a particle beam in one part of a laboratory changes the state of an entangled beam in another part of the laboratory, even though the only connection between the two beams occurred in the past and some distance away.

Einstein famously was suspicious of quantum physics because it seemed too peculiar, and because it was difficult to see how it could be integrated into his theory of relativity to create a "grand unified theory of everything". Yet it has been experimentally proven, and forms the basis of much modern physics.

However a view is coming into vogue that there may be an even more fundamental understanding of physics (just as quantum physics is more fundamental than the classical physics that we are all familiar with), that will one day be discovered to explain the quantum peculiarities in a simple and logical (and non-peculiar!) way. The key seems to be in using a different form of mathematics than we usually use.

I have read a few research scientists who say that inspiration and a general feeling of the "fitness" of things play a big part in their developing of ideas, which they then flesh out using the familiar route of scientific hypothesis, data and hypothesis-testing. I find it interesting that we somehow expect the world to be logical, ordered, mathematical and explicable, even if we believe it to have occurred by random chance.

Check out Quantum Physics and Entanglement in Wikipedia, or new theories and speculations in New Scientist and a science forum.

god and science

Atheism has become more militant in the last decade or so, particularly on the part of scientists who believe science, and not religion, has the answers. Richard Dawkins is probably the most famous scientist-atheist, and possibly the keenest mind, but there are many others.

But perhaps one surprising outcome of this surge in anti-theism has been a scientific reaction to the more extreme anti-religion rhetoric. Dawkins and others claim that religion has been responsible for some of the worst evils in history, and in the world today, and that belief in God is almost like a virulent virus that should be eliminated as efficiently as possible.

Of course this analysis is one-sided, and ignores all the well-documented evidence that much good is done in the world by believers, but neither is the argument without some basis. But now some scientists are contesting the view on other grounds.

An example is a recent (October) conference (if that is the correct word) in the US, Beyond Belief (Enlightenment 2), a follow-up to a similar conference last year. It brought together some of the top thinkers in the sciences and social sciences, and its aim was to discuss how to extend the exercise of reason in all aspects of life (and hence extend the gains of the eighteenth century enlightenment).

Enlightenment 1 was reportedly a bit of an "atheist love fest", but last month's discussion was more broad-minded. Included in the program were a number of speakers expert in the study of religion from an evolutionary viewpoint. If you ignore for the moment the question of whether God actually exists or not, you can discuss how religions arise in the evolution of societies, and what benefits, or not, they bring. And the conclusion of many is that religion brings many benefits to societies and individuals, and not only might it be unhelpful to try to eliminate it, but it may even be impossible.

Naturally, the more militant atheists present, including famous names like Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Peter Atkins, disagreed with many of these proposals.

Part of the argument concerned the place of reason. Some scientists believe reason should be the basis of everything; some believe science should be the basis of everything and discard even philosophy. But others argue that science will never be able to assume such an all-embracing role, and that many important aspects of life, including ethics and emotions, cannot be explained by rationalism alone.

Although I didn't see anything about the event in the normal press here in Australia, it has certainly made a big splash among people sympathetic to the ideas. The "war" between science and religion, no longer so much of a big deal among most believers, is gaining traction among non-believers. They believe reason is on their side, and they increasingly want to stamp out the superstition they believe religion to be. (To be fair, I think for many of the general populace, such events may serve the purpose of shoring up their shaky "faith" in non-theism more than setting them marching.)

As an interested layperson, I have a few concerns about all this:

• The arguments get so complex, and are based on such detailed research, that most of us will never be able to grasp them fully, and are largely excluded from the debate. Thus these scientists become the new "high priests", qualified and on a mission to help the rest of us poor non-scientists get our thinking "right". This is an especially worrying thought when you hear a scientific zealot like Peter Atkins. Alister McGrath and others have pointed out that many scientists supported and participated in some of the grossest excesses of recent Nazi and Stalinist regimes, and that their science does not necessarily provide them with the wisdom and basis to make ethical judgments - in fact, atheistic science is still grappling with the question of what ethics are. Of course, it may be that these questions may remain merely discussion points by erudite boffins closeted away from the public, but I think their views will inevitably affect all of us.
• The discussion of the evolutionary origins of religion does not address the issue of whether God actually exists. That question is generally assumed to have been answered in a resounding, and obvious, negative, when in fact it is still an open question. But the more we concentrate on the mechanics of the sociology of how religion may arise naturally, the easier it is to ignore the larger question of what is the truth, and even think that it is unimportant or already answered.
• There is one aspect of these scientists' view of theistic belief I find especially troubling - their oft-stated assertion that belief in God is firmly in the realm of "faith" whereas science deals with "facts", with the undemonstrated assumption that believers lack any reason behind their beliefs. For example, one commentator, Professor P Z Myers, wrote: "the majority of people on the planet are practicing really bad science, because they don't recognize that their very first premise, that a god exists, is false". Of course the two modes of thought have differences, but this dichotomy is too stark. There are many matters which scientists believe to be true which cannot be proven in the same way that gravity can be demonstrated - the origin of life is one example, because we cannot experiment on the past and demonstration can be little more than "feasibility studies". So science is not 100% reason. And theism is not 100% non-reason either. Such an assertion is contradicted by the number of eminent scientists (John Polkinghorne comes to mind) who are also theists, and by the fact that most of the philosophical arguments for the existence of God are based on observable facts, even if the "proof" from there is not scientific. I just wish the new scientists, from Dawkins down, would stop making such outrageous statements about faith, and accept that theists can be rational, albeit they believe them mistaken.

But I can't see these objections being heard, let alone adequately addressed. If theists are "irrational" by definition, why even engage with them?

So I believe we are in for some dark and dirty days. If the militant atheists are right, the superstition of religion may be better eliminated, or at least understood for what it is - although I fear for the sort of society they will bring in its place. But if, as I believe, there is a God, those of us who persist in believing are in for ridicule at best, and quite likely something worse. C S Lewis predicted it half a century ago. It will be unpleasant, but I suppose at least it won't be boring.

If you want to read more:

• the website for Beyond Belief;
• a review of Beyond Belief by New Scientist magazine, which takes a relatively positive view of religious belief;
• reviews by Prof P Z Myers (and part 2) and Prof L A Moran which are closer to hard-line atheism;
• an article by one of the speakers, David Sloane Wilson, in which he argues that Richard Dawkins has an unscientific view of religion, and Dawkins' brief reply.

the rich get richer, the poor get the picture

One measure of inequality within a nation is the gap between the rich and the poor. (Household wealth is often the indicator, and the rich and poor are generally defined as those in the top 20% and those in the bottom 20%.)

A recent survey by the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicates that the gap is widening. There is (I guess) both good news and bad news.

The good news for the poor is that they are getting richer in real terms - a 6% increase in wealth in the two years to June 2006. But the "bad" news is that they are falling behind - those in the middle of the range increased their wealth by 9% and the rich by 18%. So the rich are more than 60 times more wealthy than the poor, and 11% of Aussies live below the defined "poverty line".

Another recent report indicated that some of the poor lack the resources to buy properly nutritious food, and this may be the reason why the poor are more likely to suffer from diet-related diseases.

So while the rest of us have discretionary income to spend on non-essentials, it is partly at the cost of poorer people's health.

Read about the gap between rich and poor as reported by the Sydney Morning Herald and Sydney University, and the ABC report on the impact on diet.

tv and bad choices

Photo: Flickr

Another study on the impacts of TV on children, another adverse report .....

The Sydney Morning Herald recently reported on a New Zealand study that found that watching more than 2 hours television per day during the pre-teen years had adverse effects during adolescence, with greater impacts if the child watched more than 3 hours. Some of the impacts:

• a significant increase in attention problems;
• more excessive TV watching;
• reduced interest in school work, perhaps because TV overstimulates and makes more mundane activities such as homework seem boring in comparison.

We know we need to encourage our children's development by spending time with them, and building all manner of good things into their lives and characters. But somehow, our busy lives, often made busier by wanting so many material things and having to work so much more to afford them, leads to us using TV as a substitute.

This is another example where what we commonly choose, or are conditioned by advertising to choose, is not in our best interests - how we so often choose the convenient and superficially attractive over the good. I think I'll make this a theme, which I'll return to a few more times.

Read more from the SMH article.

lives ripped apart so far from home

Tyne Cot war cemetery near Passchendaele. Photo: Flickr

In Australia, today is Remembrance Day, when we are all supposed to remember the sacrifice of soldiers who died serving their country. Most Australians are very supportive of our troops and deeply thankful for the sacrifices made, but many have mixed feelings. For none died on Australian soil and the majority were not defending our country.

Most died on the other side of the world, and it is tragically true to say that so many died in wars with questionable purposes or futile tactics.

Anzac Day is one of Australia's most solemn days, and it commemorates the costly sacrifice of Australian and New Zealand troops as part of an abortive British invasion of Turkey in 1915. But perhaps the most destructive, and often futile, campaign was in France and Belgium between 1914 and 1918.

Many books, films, TV shows and newspaper articles have been written about the terrible trench warfare in World War 1, and the senselessness of charging artillery and machine gun positions across boggy land in broad daylight, and getting cut down - again and again! But in recent times, the emphasis has been more on the human aspects - what sort of people were these diggers, how did they cope with the inhumanity of that war, and how did their suffering and dying affect those who live on back home?

Many Australians now take great interest in the experiences of their relatives and some research their forbears' fate via diaries, war records and first hand visits to the battle fields. In the Sydney Morning Herald this weekend, Ray Black talks of the 60,000 Aussies who never returned from France and Belgium, "many thousands of them blasted into oblivion by artillery, and as a result with no known grave", the further 60,000 who returned but died within a decade as a result of the war, and those who were so traumatised that their lives were all but destroyed by alcoholism, violence, broken relationships and suicide.

He also paints some memorable pictures: battled toughened men crying as they approached their homeland again; a gravestone with the desperately sad epitaph: "An only son killed in action on his way to his leave and wedding"; a farmer recently uncovering 5 bodies, one man found to have been carefully wrapped in his groundsheet by his own brother, who apparently participated in the same attack.

Ray's great uncle was killed in Flanders, so this year he visited the battlefield on the 90th anniversary of the attack on Broodseinde Ridge near the village of Passchendaele to find the place where his relative probably lost his life and to remember by burning Aussie gum leaves at the spot.

Ray's story is just one of many, but moving in its simplicity. I cannot read such stories without feeling a deep sadness about the young lives so unnecessarily lost or marred, and anger about the careless stupidity of generals who sent brave men to certain death on ridiculous missions, without understanding, or in some cases even seeing, the hellish conditions they were fighting in.

We can say, probably fairly, that they were different, and more ignorant, times. But we understand so much more now, and we know the devastation war causes to both sides. We should know enough to be firmly committed to the view that war is absolutely the last resort, only to be chosen when there genuinely is no other option, and in full understanding of its terrible toll. If only the politicians and revolutionaries would learn the lessons!

Read Ray's account from the Sydney Morning Herald. Anyone wanting to read more human stories about Aussie troops in WW1 should read The Great War by Les Carlyon. You may also enjoy this blog based on the letters of an English soldier who served in Flanders.

a prettyish kind of a little wilderness

We live on a small suburban block with a main road behind. But there are plenty of trees around and we have retained as many as we can. So we attract some wildlife .....

Our yard.

Rainbow lorikeets - loud, sassy and generally fearless.

Sulphur crested cockatoos - comical, persistent and messy eaters.

Eastern rosellas - shy and only rarely seen.

Crimson rosellas - also shy and not commonly seen.

Pigeons and doves - I don't really know the difference.

And my favourite, the magnificent and gentle king parrot.

With so many different birds, there are bound to be the occasional problem, such as a messy deck, and the occasional fight. Here two rosellas face up to an aggressive noisy miner.

And there's not just birds, but spiders ....

..... autumn leaves .....

..... and possums. This old brushtail mother possum was so blind she came out in daylight. She successfully reared a succession of babies until she died recently.

When I was a boy, living not far from here, there were few trees and most of the birds were small - sparrows, blue wrens, silvereyes and willie wagtails. But in recent years, the drought and the increased number of trees have brought the bigger birds into the suburbs.

There are organisations which can help us make our gardens more friendly for native birds, especially the smaller ones, such as finches, pardalotes and wrens. You can check them out - Birds Australia, Flora for Fauna, and Backyard Buddies.

i always loved this cartoon