Edmund Morris and Theodore Roosevelt

You may have heard of Edmund Morris. He was the official biographer of Ronald Reagan, hired by Ron and Nancy after writing the Pullitzer Prize winning The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt. His eventual biography of Reagan, Dutch, was a controversial, some say reprehensible, flop. He was criticized by liberals and conservatives alike and himself confessed that he never really understood Reagan at all--this after having spent fourteen years with him and having complete access to all his papers, files, and correspondence. His style was a self-described post-modern new style of biography where he made up a fictional narrator (himself) and apparently made up a lot of other stuff too. In short, the book was horrid. Others have done much better with Reagan's life and presidency.

Yeah, that Edmund Morris.

I absolutely loved The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt and hope that some of you might read it too. You will fall in love with Teddy's character as the quintessential American and gain an appreciation for him even when rolling your eyes at some of his ideas and actions. The book paints a stunning portrait, stroke by stroke, of TR the man. While reading I wondered if TR wasn't a bit manic, but those eccentricities which led me to think that are also the bits that endeared me to him. Roosevelt comes off as a compelling contradiction, being on one hand an intellectual snob and on the other a leader and companion of the "rough riders."

I am now a few chapters into Theodore Rex, published twenty-two years after the first, but it feels like I have picked right up where I left off. The Rise gives us the story of TR from birth until right before his ascension to the presidency in 1901. Rex chronicles his two terms as President. If anything, the writing style has improved in the sequel (I wish I could write that well) and, though my reading time is limited these days, I plan to finish off its 600+ pages by Christmas. There is a planned third volume which will complete the "trilogy" and I hope Mr. Morris is working on it.

A Prayer of St. Augustine

Passing time each morning (most mornings) with St. Augustine has been a joy for me this year and, I hope, a benefit. Augustine is probably not the typical Baptist's cup of tea, but I like going outside the norm in my reading. Augustine takes me back to the dawn of Christianity and allows me to delve into the thinking of the early disciples. I view The Confessions of St. Augustine as an archaeologist might view an ancient ruin. It beckons with hidden promise of rich discovery.

Two things stand out to me in Augustine's Confessions. One is humility, the other is faith. I know that I could use more of both.

This morning I read this:

Let me know Thee, O lord, who knowest me: let me know Thee, as I am known. Power of my soul, enter into it, and fit it for Thee, that Thou mayest have and hold it without spot or wrinkle. This is my hope, therefore do I speak; and in this hope do I rejoice, when I rejoice healthfully. Other things of this life are the less to be wept for, the more they are wept for; and the more to be wept for, the less men weep for them. For behold, Thou lovest the truth and he that doth it, cometh to the light. This would I do in my heart before Thee in confession: and in my writing, before many witnesses.--Confessions of St. Augustine, Book Ten, chapter 1.

(Scriptures referenced: 1 Cor. 13:12; Eph. 5:27; Ps. 116:10; Ps. 51:6; John 3:20)

There is meat in that.

Liberal Coffee

I feel so good about myself today. You see, I start off each morning with coffee--good coffee--usually Distant Lands coffee purchased at my local grocer and brewed from whole beans. Coffee is important to me. I enjoy it. I thank God for it (and that goat-herder in northern Africa who discovered it). It gets me going.

I usually maintain a strict "don't ask, don't tell" policy when it comes to the politics of my coffee. I find it easier to drink it this way. Just like with my favorite Hollywood actors, I would prefer not to know or hear their political leanings because, well, sometimes it can be scary. I like to remain blissfully naive on these things. Who wants to learn that their favorite character in a movie was portrayed by some marxist sympathizer who thinks, for example, that America should be more like Fidel Castro's Cuba? No, I'd rather just like the guy and not know anything about him.

The same goes with my coffee. I don't ask it what it thinks about capitalism and it doesn't try to raise my taxes or put me on the government dole. We just enjoy each other's company.

But this morning when I went for the coffee beans I remembered that the bag was empty. The poverty I felt at that moment had a Dickens-like character . . . enough to make a good capitalist's blood run cold.

So I made my way to work without my morning brew, vowing to stop somewhere where I could get something with some strength and fortitude, some flavor, some substance.

Something real.

Have I mentioned that typical American coffee like, say, Folgers or Maxwell House is embarassingly weak? Drinking that meager fare is akin to pouring food coloring in hot water. Seriously. American coffee, for the most part, is like half-coffee. I could not settle for that.

So I stopped at Starbucks.

I got a grande Sumatran blend and a bag of whole bean Ethiopia Sidamo. Oh, and a coffee mug for the road--liberal coffee.

I feel so good about myself now. I've probably saved a rainforest, done my part to encourage fair trading practices, helped put a long-hair through Berkeley, and, oh yeah, even built a bridge in Ethiopia to help farmers get their beans to market.

Man, what a guy I am!

I feel like Sean Connery in Medicine Man, like I'm making a difference in the world.

I bet Bush doesn't even drink coffee. The Nazi!

So if you really care about the earth, the poor, saving the rainforest, curing AIDS, fair trade, and making the world into a worker's paradise and all that, start your morning off right . . . like I do . . . with some liberal coffee!

The Theology of Atheism

Random, unorganized thoughts on a rainy morning while I drink my coffee.

Atheism is a theological position.

I thought it wouldn't hurt to take a break from politics for at least one post and this thought has been in the back of my head for some time now so we'll see if I can manage to spit it out this morning in a coherent way.

Again, atheism is a theological position. I feel like it has to be said because many of the atheists I have come in contact with seem to be in denial of this. They think of themselves as a-theological or supra-theological.

"Theology?" they say. "That's for children. I believe in science and facts. I don't need theology." When challenged on the fact that they are theologically ignorant their trite response is usually something like "Why would I need to study theology to tell you I don't believe in God? Do I have to read all the books on fairies to tell you I don't believe in them? Or do I have to study Santa Claus to legitimately claim that there is none?"

Sounds cute, but it is woefully ignorant. To say that one is an atheist is to take a theological position. Everyone is a theologian. Any statement about God is a theological statement. For example, to state "I am an atheist and Christians are fools" is to make a theological statement. So when individuals choose to make theological statements but then refuse to back them up with theological arguments or at least to give themselves a cursory education in the field they are being stubbornly ignorant. They don't want to be challenged.

Oh, they may not mind making a sport of drive-by rhetorical sniping. They may enjoy strong verbal salvos aimed at those they deem ignorant. But many times those they deem ignorant at least have some knowledge of the topic at hand . . . theology.

All of this reminds me that I have a discussion to get back to with a fine gentleman from Scotland on the fundamentalist forums, a gentleman who by now is probably thinking the same about me (about the drive-by rhetorical sniping).

It also reminds me that I was reading a book by Professor Richard Dawkins, a quite interesting book that I need to get back to. I was enjoying it and I'm not sure what happened. I think I got more interested in my Teddy Roosevelt biography and laid the other aside.

Soon.

Obama and the Least of These

I told you, I told you, I told you! I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet but isn't it uncanny that on Saturday morning here in east Texas I was telling you how socialists historically have misused Matthew 25 to promote a socialist agenda and that very night Barack Obama goes to Saddleback Church and does that very thing? Shouldn't I get an award or something? Check out this short video:



A couple things:

First, Christ, in the passage in Matthew 25, is not addressing a secular society, he is addressing his Church--a Christian society. It is the Church's job to care for the poor and do ministry in Christ's name, not the government's. Charity belongs in the private sector where it is done much more efficiently by self-sacrificing people who have love for Christ and others as a motive. When government does "charity" it must take the money it uses from citizens whom it threatens with the use of force and then give it to others. Those involved too often have power and control as their motivation, not love for Christ--and power naturally corrupts.

Second, America does care for its poor. My goodness, in comparison to the rest of the world we don't even have any poor. America feeds the world, cares for people who are stricken with disease and disaster, is always first to send aid to other countries in need. Always. For Obama to imply that we do little is ludicrous. Furthermore, we do it freely, through private organizations, we don't need the government to act as a middle-man. Americans are the most generous people on earth.

Third, America's greatest moral failure is abortion. Period. Up until this century it was slavery and oppression of minorities, but that has been addressed in large measure. Lincoln ended slavery with the Emancipation Proclamation and a hundred years later the Civil Rights Act went a long way toward ending institutional injustice against African Americans. That moral failure was addressed and that is something to be proud of as Americans. But abortion is worse. It takes an entire class of citizens and, instead of just enslaving them--stripping them of their God-given rights based on nothing more than color of skin--it says to them they have no right at all, to even live. It takes their life for the most inexcusable of all reasons--convenience. It is repugnant, repulsive, barbaric. It is heinous. But to the left, and to Obama, it is defended as a "right."

Do you think maybe "the least of these" as referred to by Jesus might include the most vulnerable of those in whom God has breathed the breath of life--the unborn? What will the Great Judge of all the Earth have to say about those who had it in their power to pass legislation and end the holocaust against the unborn and did not, in fact, acted to sustain the holocaust and even protect it? And what about those, like Obama, who even acted three times in the Illinois state Senate to kill bills that would have outlawed infanticide?

Your greatest moral failure, Mr. Obama, was not drugs or alcohol. It was acting to protect abortion and infanticide (a redundancy, in my opinion) when you had it in your power to work toward outlawing them. Shame on you and shame on us and shame on the Democrats.

Obama references our Scripture!

Saturday night while no one was watching Obama and McCain both appeared at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church for a forum. Obama appeared first, answered questions from Warren, then left the stage for McCain to repeat the process. During his answers Obama made reference to the Scripture that I cited in my last post on the evils of socialism and used it to do exactly what I told you that 19th century evangelicals used to do with it. I have to leave for work now, but as soon as I can I will find video of it and post it here along with comments.

Uncanny.

Legally Sanctioned Robbery

Governmental redistribution of income (socialism) is legally sanctioned robbery.

It is interesting to note that a large portion of the early socialist movement in England (mid to late 19th century) was made up of evangelical Christians. Their arguments were that as a society we were obligated to care for the poor and the downtrodden. This was both a logical extension of Christian theology and an integral and practical part of the Christian faith mandated by Christ himself.

Matthew 25:
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?' 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

As a Christian society we are to care for the poor.

There are several problems with that and I hope to deal with each of them. They are, in no particular order:

(1) This is a mandate for the Church, not the state. "Christian society" does not equal society as a whole.

(2) What Christ mandates for the Church is rightly responded to by heartfelt agreement and submission by his disciples. In this case, the result is what we call charity--voluntary giving out of love for Christ and others (the two greatest commandments). By definition, charity cannot be forced. When it is, as in the case of governmental redistribution of wealth from the "haves" to the "have nots", it is not charity at all and thus not obedience at all.

(3) It violates the fundamental economic principles of justice taught in the rest of Scripture, principles such as "the laborer is worthy of his hire" and "if a man does not work, neither should he eat."

Let's look at the third briefly:

If I were to go to each of my neighbors and ask them to give to a worthy charitable cause this would be a laudable use of my time and energy. Some of my neighbors would likely give and they would be following the mandates of Christ in doing so. Others would not give for various reasons and this does not necessarily mean they are disobeying Christ, again for various reasons (maybe they gave at the office)(smile).

Understand, however, that there is a principle involved here that is fundamental to justice and the maintenance of a just society and it is this: money earned by an individual rightfully belongs to that individual, not to anyone else and not to society as a whole. It is that individual's right to do with that money as he wishes. When someone else takes that money by either force or deception we call that a crime. It is an injustice.

So let's go back now to my example but change it just a little. What if I go door to door to all my neighbors and instead of asking them to give voluntarily to a good cause I threaten force against them unless they hand over a certain portion of what is theirs to me so that I can give it to other people. What would happen? The police would be called and I would be thrown in jail. Why? That's called robbery and is punishable by law in every human society since the beginning of time.

Except when government does it in a socialist society.

Why is it that government can do what would be a crime if an individual did it? What right does one individual have to force another individual to do what that other individual wishes with the first individual's money? None. I have no right at all to force you to do anything with your money. It is yours. However, for some reason we have been conditioned to believe that it is okay for government to decide what individuals should do with their own money, for government to take that money by force away from its rightful owner and give it to someone else. Socialism is legally sanctioned robbery. It is a fundamental injustice and a violation of individual liberty. It is our God-given right to keep what we earn and do with it as we wish. Our obedience to God's commands and submission to Christ's mandates must be voluntary or they are not obedience or submission at all.

This is not an argument against all taxation. There are certain things that government must do to protect our liberties and those things require the equal support of all citizens, but re-distribution of wealth is not one of them. Socialism is an unjust and blatant misuse of governmental authority. It is robbery and it is tyranny.

The Death of Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Alexander Solzhenitsyn died this past Sunday. Don't know who he was? Don't feel bad. Neither did I. But after reading a bit about him on Al Mohler's blog I now have some new books added to my wishlist.

Texas Stands Tall

It is sad when anyone dies. It is sadder still when someone is cut off at a young age, an untimely death, as it were. What is even more sad is when the ones who die at a young age are the victims of a senseless act of evil. That was the case with Elizabeth Pena (16) and Jennifer Ertman (14) who were gang-raped and brutally murdered fifteen years ago in Houston, Texas.

One of the culprits, Jose Medellin, was executed for his part in the crime last night.

Genesis 9:6 (ESV)
“Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image.

It is not surprising to hear that Texas has executed another criminal. As Eustace would say, we do that round here. What does grab your attention is when Texas snubs its nose at Mexico and the world to do it.

Thank God for Texas. No wonder I live here.

The World Court had argued that Medellin, a Mexican national (he was here illegally, his parents having crossed over illegally when he was three), suffered legal harm when he was not informed of certain rights he had under the Vienna Convention. Mexico's Foreign Relations Department had sent a note of protest to our State Department regarding Medellin's case.

Our State Department responded back that he should not have been here illegally in the first place and the Mexican government should concern itself with that fact as well as the other fourteen gazillion illegals who are over here.

I wish.

No, in response, the President asked the states who are currently holding Mexican nationals on death row to review those cases. But the Supreme Court ruled that neither the President nor the World Court could intervene on the sovereignty of Texas and force it to delay the execution.

Duh.

What's scary is that there was ever a doubt, that this battle ever even had to be fought.

But Texas stood tall and when the time came Medellin was given his lethal injection and justice was served.

Mexico can go jump in the river (those who haven't already). If the Mexican government weren't so woefully inept and corrupt and cripplingly socialist the people wouldn't be fleeing here in droves in the first place. Take that Mexico's Foreign Relations Department.

People Are Listening to Obama

There is hope for America yet. Change is no longer just a slogan, it is becoming reality. Can you feel the electricity in the air? Those aren't goosebumps, those are Obamabumps. It's the power of inevitability that is sweeping our land. Obama speaks and people listen.

Yes, I made fun of Barack Obama's suggestion that we could save as much oil by simply airing up our tires and getting tune-ups as the oil companies could produce by new drilling. Yes, I utilized my second amendment rights and unleashed my rhetorical cannons on that idea. But I now have to concede that perhaps I rushed to judgment.

People are listening.

As I was driving to work this morning and listening to the Glenn Beck program on the radio (and I highly recommend him and his show) I got to noticing the other cars out there with me. I did more than notice them, I purposely looked at all the tires that were going by me, attached to those automobiles busily carrying their human cargo to school and to work. Know what I saw?

Not one under-inflated tire.

I know, I know, I know. It's hard to believe, isn't it? What has it been, only a week? Already America is listening to Obama and inflating her tires. Why, it seems like only a few weeks ago when just about everybody was driving around with a flat. But now, thanks to Barack Obama showing us a better way, people are inflating their tires and soon, and I do believe it will be soon, gas will be back down to $3, even $2 a gallon.

Feels good doesn't it?

Douglas Adams and Dirk Gently

Douglas Adams is the world-famous author of the world-famous Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy trilogy. And, yes, there were five books in that trilogy. I read them in high school and, though I'm sure a lot of the satire went right over my head, I found them a delight. I read them again when in my mid-twenties and then a third time about three years ago. The first was made into a movie.

It is ironic that Adams was an atheist for, in my opinion, he was nearly a god with a pen. I absolutely adore his prose. It's not just that he's funny, he can paint a picture in a most colorful and hilarious way. He also seems to be able to find the humor in everyday characters and bring it out. As a writer I could only wish that I had the vocabulary to describe to you how great a writer I think Adams was.

Yes, was. Sadly, he is dead. Sadder still is the fact that he only wrote two novels in his Dirk Gently detective series. Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency and The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul have to be the funniest books ever written. I can remember being up at 2am in my college dorm literally rolling on the floor and laughing while reading The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul. I have just started reading the first one for the third time and its sequel will follow. I love these books.

Buy them. Read them. Go to your local library and check them out. Do it now!

Jupiter Rising

Friday night I was peacefully eating a bite of supper and watching a little television when I noticed my boys were busy with something out in the front yard. A few minutes later in comes my younger son Michael (5) with a little bit of a disappointed look on his face. "Dad," says he, "can you help us find the star we're trying to look at? Jimmy can't find it."

"Hold on," I told him, "I'll be out there in a minute."

Sure enough, the boys were outside with the telescope. It wasn't quite dark yet and my first reaction was to tell them that it was still too bright to see any stars. Then I noticed that one star was visible just over the horizon toward our west(?) Jimmy was busy getting frustrated because he could not get it in his viewfinder. "That's not a star, that's a planet," I said, showing off just about the sum total of my astronomical knowledge.

"I know," said Jimmy who is about to turn twelve. "That's what I wanted to look at. What planet do you think it is?"

"Probably Venus," I guessed.

So I had him bring me out a chair and I sat down and tried for a good while to find the planet in the telescope. This was not as easy as it may sound as the telescope is a bit rickety on its tripod stand and it tends to not want to stay where it is fixed. Just before it was my turn to get frustrated I struck pay dirt. There was a large, bright ball of light in my lens, but out of focus. I adjusted and it got smaller and smaller until there was a tiny planet looking back at me. I was surprised, nearly stunned actually. I had not believed that the telescope would show something that clearly. I looked again. "This is not Venus," I told Jimmy. "It's Jupiter." What surprised me is that I could see it clearly enough to distinguish which planet it was. But the identity was unmistakable. I could make out the colors and the horizontal stripes. Jupiter.

The boys took turns looking at it breathlessly. I wasn't certain, but those tiny dots which seemed to be surrounding it, could they be moons? Jimmy ran and got his star book and confirmed that, yes, Jupiter was viewable in the night sky during the month of August from just before to a few hours after dark.

What excited me was how excited they were about it. Of course, Michael is excited about anything that excites Jimmy. It's a younger brother thing. I took advantage to encourage Jimmy about a possible career field in astronomy. I want him to know that the whole world is open to him as a possibility and that his only limitations are those he places upon himself, so I'm always doing this. Michael piped up, "Yeah, and I'm going to Mars."

"You are?"

"Yeah," he said matter-of-factly. "I was watching the Backyardigans the other day and they flew to Mars in a spaceship." It was as if it were commonplace.

"Well, you just might," I told him.

The Coming Ice Age

From the April 28, 1975 issue of newsweek. I found it at Sweetness & Light.

The Cooling World
By Peter Gwynne
28 April 1975

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production — with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas — parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia — where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually.

During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree — a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.

“A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras — and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average.

Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 — years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases — all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.”

Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects.

They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

Can anyone say, "radical theory change in science"? More on this to come.

Carl Sagan and the Matrix

You might think I don't like Carl Sagan but that wouldn't be the case. I do kind of like the guy. He reminds me of those sort of smarmy teachers I had in the gifted classes I took in elementary school in Southern California as a kid. He just sort of epitomizes the 70s and science for me. Anytime I see one of his old Cosmos shows coming on one of the nerd channels I watch it. But his voice, speaking tone, and teaching manor just beg to be mocked, don't they? I ran across this little gem this morning on YouTube and absolutely loved it. You gotta watch it.

Ever wondered if scientist Carl Sagan and Agent Smith from The Matrix might be the same person somehow?

Carl Sagan Was Naive - part 2

"How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant'? Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.' A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths."--Carl Sagan in Pale Blue Dot.

I think what I should do is just pick apart this statement piece by piece. I shall try to be merciful but justice demands swift punishment of such blatant and willful ignorance in a man professing to be so full of knowledge and wisdom.

And one other thing before I do that. Blaming the ignorance quoted above on marijuana use is just too easy an out for me to give Mr. Sagan. I am certain he believed this way all the time, not just when under the influence. But it was fun giving him the jab.

Sagan: "How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, . . ."

I doubt if Sagan knew much, if anything, about any major religion. The appalling ignorance in this particular quotation is prima facie evidence of this.

Why would religion spend its time looking to science? Religion looks to the God of science, not to science. It deals with things that cannot be tested with the scientific method.

Sagan: "How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant'?"

Is he asking why religion has not elevated science to the status of religion like he has?

I can't speak for other religions, but I can for the Christian faith. I can think of no biblical prophet who downgraded the universe. They conceived of a universe as grand, subtle, and elegant as their limited capacity to understand it would allow them. What they did understand they praised and pointed to its grandness as proof of the greatness of God.

At least two major religions could point Sagan to Psalm 8:

O LORD, our Lord,
how majestic is your name in all the earth!
You have set your glory above the heavens.
. . .
When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,
what is man that you are mindful of him,
and the son of man that you care for him?

Or the prophet Amos:

He who made the Pleiades and Orion,
and turns deep darkness into the morning
and darkens the day into night,
who calls for the waters of the sea
and pours them out on the surface of the earth,
the LORD is his name;

Or how about the oldest book in either the Christian or Hebrew canon? Read as Job quotes God on the wonders of the universe pointing to the greatness of God (and the humility which should be displayed by man in the face of it and Him.)--Job 38

Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said:

“Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
Dress for action like a man;
I will question you, and you make it known to me.

“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
Who determined its measurements—surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
On what were its bases sunk,
or who laid its cornerstone,
when the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

“Or who shut in the sea with doors
when it burst out from the womb,
when I made clouds its garment
and thick darkness its swaddling band,
and prescribed limits for it
and set bars and doors,
and said, ‘Thus far shall you come, and no farther,
and here shall your proud waves be stayed’?

“Have you commanded the morning since your days began,
and caused the dawn to know its place,
that it might take hold of the skirts of the earth,
and the wicked be shaken out of it?
It is changed like clay under the seal,
and its features stand out like a garment.
From the wicked their light is withheld,
and their uplifted arm is broken.

“Have you entered into the springs of the sea,
or walked in the recesses of the deep?
Have the gates of death been revealed to you,
or have you seen the gates of deep darkness?
Have you comprehended the expanse of the earth?
Declare, if you know all this.

“Where is the way to the dwelling of light,
and where is the place of darkness,
that you may take it to its territory
and that you may discern the paths to its home?
You know, for you were born then,
and the number of your days is great!

“Have you entered the storehouses of the snow,
or have you seen the storehouses of the hail,
which I have reserved for the time of trouble,
for the day of battle and war?
What is the way to the place where the light is distributed,
or where the east wind is scattered upon the earth?

“Who has cleft a channel for the torrents of rain
and a way for the thunderbolt,
to bring rain on a land where no man is,
on the desert in which there is no man,
to satisfy the waste and desolate land,
and to make the ground sprout with grass?

“Has the rain a father,
or who has begotten the drops of dew?
From whose womb did the ice come forth,
and who has given birth to the frost of heaven?
The waters become hard like stone,
and the face of the deep is frozen.

“Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades
or loose the cords of Orion?
Can you lead forth the Mazzaroth in their season,
or can you guide the Bear with its children?
Do you know the ordinances of the heavens?
Can you establish their rule on the earth?

“Can you lift up your voice to the clouds,
that a flood of waters may cover you?
Can you send forth lightnings, that they may go
and say to you, ‘Here we are’?
Who has put wisdom in the inward parts
or given understanding to the mind?
Who can number the clouds by wisdom?
Or who can tilt the waterskins of the heavens,
when the dust runs into a mass
and the clods stick fast together?

“Can you hunt the prey for the lion,
or satisfy the appetite of the young lions,
when they crouch in their dens
or lie in wait in their thicket?
Who provides for the raven its prey,
when its young ones cry to God for help,
and wander about for lack of food?

I could go on . . . and on . . . and on. But my point, I think is made. The prophets proclaimed a grand, subtle, meticulous, orderly, wonderful universe and used it as evidence to point to the greatness of its God. For the Christian (or the orthodox Jew for that matter) the bigger science can demonstrate the universe to be, the more wondrous the world around us, the more praiseworthy is our God. All of this just renders Sagan's comment, well, stupid.

Sagan: "Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.'"

It would be nice to see some evidence of this negative assertion about the major religions. Again, I cannot speak for all of them, but I can certainly speak for the Christian faith and perhaps the Jewish one as well. We have the grandest view of God imaginable. That is why we conceive of him in terms that begin with "omni-" and "all-". You know, like omnipotent, omniscient, all-wise, all-seeing, omnipresent, etc. In fact, it is impossible to conceive of a God more grand than the Christian God and the larger science discovers the universe to be--the more complex, the more subtle, the more wondrous--the greater this God becomes in our conception.

Sagan: "A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths."

And how would Sagan know this has not happened or is not happening seeing he had nothing to do with the major religions his entire adult life? And did he (and does Dawkins) really believe that science holds a monopoly on reverence and awe for creation?


I cannot resist one more sripture quotation, this time from the prophet Isaiah (chapter 40):

Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand
and marked off the heavens with a span,
enclosed the dust of the earth in a measure
and weighed the mountains in scales
and the hills in a balance?
Who has measured the Spirit of the LORD,
or what man shows him his counsel?
Whom did he consult,
and who made him understand?
Who taught him the path of justice,
and taught him knowledge,
and showed him the way of understanding?
Behold, the nations are like a drop from a bucket,
and are accounted as the dust on the scales;
behold, he takes up the coastlands like fine dust.
Lebanon would not suffice for fuel,
nor are its beasts enough for a burnt offering.
All the nations are as nothing before him,
they are accounted by him as less than nothing and emptiness.

To whom then will you liken God,
or what likeness compare with him?
An idol! A craftsman casts it,
and a goldsmith overlays it with gold
and casts for it silver chains.
He who is too impoverished for an offering
chooses wood that will not rot;
he seeks out a skillful craftsman
to set up an idol that will not move.

Do you not know? Do you not hear?
Has it not been told you from the beginning?
Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?
It is he who sits above the circle of the earth,
and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers;
who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;
who brings princes to nothing,
and makes the rulers of the earth as emptiness.

Scarcely are they planted, scarcely sown,
scarcely has their stem taken root in the earth,
when he blows on them, and they wither,
and the tempest carries them off like stubble.

To whom then will you compare me,
that I should be like him? says the Holy One.
Lift up your eyes on high and see:
who created these?
He who brings out their host by number,
calling them all by name,
by the greatness of his might,
and because he is strong in power
not one is missing.

Why do you say, O Jacob,
and speak, O Israel,
“My way is hidden from the LORD,
and my right is disregarded by my God”?
Have you not known? Have you not heard?
The LORD is the everlasting God,
the Creator of the ends of the earth.
He does not faint or grow weary;
his understanding is unsearchable.

Comes across as a small God, doesn't it? Small universe, small God. Right. Gotcha.

(all Scripture quotations taken from the English Standard Version)

Carl Sagan Was Naive

In chapter one of The God Delusion Richard Dawkins quotes Carl Sagan in an effort to demonstrate how science and scientific knowledge provide a better platform for awe and wonder than does religious faith. Before getting to the quotation, I wish to reflect a bit on the deceased Mr. Sagan.

Surely you remember him, do you not? He co-wrote and hosted the television series Cosmos which first aired on PBS in 1980. Sagan did much to popularize science, including several books, essays, the television show noted above, and frequent television appearances. He was known for his belief that extra-terrestrial life existed in the universe and for his efforts to bring about its discovery. In addition he was a political activist, being one of the first to advocate the theory of a nuclear winter taking place in the aftermath of a nuclear war and also an early advocate of the idea of man-made global warming. His leftist activism led to his arrest on more than one occasion.

But Sagan was also a noted and accomplished astronomer. He was one of the first to postulate that the surface of Venus was mostly hot and arid. He conjectured that Jupiter's moon Europa might have sub-surface oceans, a theory that was later indirectly confirmed by the spacecraft Galileo. By most measures Sagan led a full, active, and productive life.

But enough of that.

Sagan was a pantheist. I remember about two years ago they were airing those old episodes of Cosmos on the Discovery Science channel. I vaguely remembered having seen some of those shows as an adolescent. Intrigued, I watched several of them in a row. Sagan, I noted, had a gift for teaching, for making complex ideas understandable. I laughed at his hairstyle and clothing which were reminiscent of the time-period. I was enjoying myself and, yes, learning. Then came the episode where Sagan was discussing the Big Bang theory. Though Sagan did not mention this in the show, I happened to know that some scientists are a bit uncomfortable with one aspect of the Big Bang theory (and this is why it was slow in ascending to supremacy among the physicists at the time of its first being postulated), specifically that the Big Bang points back to a beginning of time and matter. This idea supports theism--not pantheism. Pantheists view matter and the universe as eternal--having no beginning or ending. Most scientists are pantheists.

So anyway, in this certain episode which I am recalling Sagan takes us to India to show us a religious world-view which he could support--pantheism. He did not name it as such, but I wasn't born yesterday and I knew where he was going with it. Then, he goes on to postulate that the universe is eternal, that it is an endless cycle of expansions and retractions. Right now, the universe is expanding; one day it will begin retracting. Then, when it is back to square one, bang, it starts all over again. His evidence for this? The Brahman religion.

I'm not kidding. That was all the evidence he cited. This was compatible with what the ancient Brahmans believed.

And the facts involved, the experimentation, the logic used to prompt me to accept Brahman pantheism over, say, Christian theism? All he gave was a simple, "Why not?"

That's it. And, yes, that passed for logic and science and sound reasoning in Carl Sagan's world.


But enough of my television memories. Let's get to that Sagan quotation in Dawkins' book. Here it is:

"How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant'? Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.' A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths."--Carl Sagan as quoted by Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, paperback, p.32,33.

You know, my knee-jerk reaction to that quotation is to ask, "What has this guy been smoking?" Turns out my knee-jerk reaction may hit closer to home than you might imagine. Sagan was, indeed, a child of his times and once wrote an essay (under a pseudonym) defending the use of cannabis in a book entitled Marihuana Reconsidered. In the essay he credits the mari-hoochie for helping to inspire some of his works and for enhancing sensual and intellectual experiences. Suddenly I know where the inspiration for this particular quotation came from. The only thing left to learn is whether it was rolled in paper or inhaled through a bong.

But that's too easy, isn't it?

In a near-future post look for me to rip Sagan's naive statement and Dawkins' gullible embracing of it in his book. It is amazing to me how these guys can make such ignorant assertions and still try to pass themselves off as the epitome of logic and reason.

I Like Dawkins

The thing is I like Richard Dawkins. I disagree with him vehemently, don't get me wrong. And I look forward to ripping him apart, in so far as I am able, as I dig my way through The God Delusion. But I have to tell you that in some ways Dawkins is a breath of fresh air. At least he believes something and what he believes in he is passionate about. People nowadays don't believe in anything passionately neither will they state anything about those beliefs forcefully for fear of offending someone. Enough of the political correctness already! Who cares if people are offended? If Dawkins is right and I am a fool for believing in God then I need to be offended, knocked upside the head rhetorically; perhaps it will bring me to my senses. And if Dawkins is wrong and playing the part of the fool (as I believe) then why shouldn't I unload verbal salvos upon him and his stupid arguments? Plain speech is a virtue!

With that in mind look for four things as I slowly plow through The God Delusion. First, look for me to take it slowly. I may read each chapter two or three times before moving on to the next. This will enable me to grasp his thoughts and subtleties well and give me time to distill my thoughts and responses and answer him well. I may be dull enough not to have oversome my childhood indoctrination into Christianity, but I have enough wits, I think, to participate and participate well, in polemical discussion. Second, look for me to be fair to Dawkins and treat him honestly and fairly whether he does the same with theists and/or Christians or not. Dawkins is not Satan. He is created in the image of God and in no more or less need of God's grace than any of us. Stupid, sinful, holier-than-thou attitudes toward people like Dawkins, which I fear are the norm in our shallow age, do nothing but fan the flames of their hatred of religion and give them justification for that hatred. Third, look for me to praise those ideas and attitudes of his with which I agree. Some posts in this line-up will be exactly that. And, last, look for me to treat him roughly, just as roughly as he treats others, when it comes to points of disagreement. Dawkins obviously likes it rough so rough is how we will have it.

Dawkins is far more educated than I am, is far more accomplished, and has much more experience. For that I respect him. He has also brought this debate down to the popular level as opposed to leaving it on the academic level and for that I am thankful. I am a big first amendment guy in case you haven't noticed and I think that hashing these things out in the popular, public sector is good for society. The fact that we can discuss these things on the level of the people and leave the discussion with our lives and liberty intact is a reflection on the goodness and rightness of the American ideal. People need to be interested in events and venues which cause them to think. I hope they will. That's why what Dawkins is doing cannot be seen as ultimately bad from a Christian perspective. If he challenges us and we rise to meet that challenge then what he has done is ultimately good--good for us and good for those who are given the opportunity to hear our defense of our faith. Truth will win the day. I believe that. Don't you?

Radical Theory Change in Science

Alister McGrath brings up an interesting observation in Chapter three of his Dawkins' God--Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life. In that chapter he has a section entitled "The Problem of Radical Theory Change in Science." Here is a quotation:

When I was learning physics at school, I gradually became aware of an awkward contradiction within what I was being taught. On the one hand, I was being assured that the theories of modern physics were completely reliable, the most secure form of knowledge that humanity could ever hope to possess. Yet every now and then, we would venture into a strange, twilight region in which it would be explained to us, in hushed, conspiratorial tones, that "physicists once used to believe this, but don't now." . . . At first, I thought that these old-fashioned views dated back to the sixteenth century. But the awful truth soon became clear. The acceptance of these new ideas dated from about forty years earlier. "Once" turned out to mean "quite recently."--Alister McGrath, Dawkins' God, p.102, paperback, Blackwell Publishing.

Yep. I've noticed that sort of thing myself. No, I'm no scientist, but I am a television nerd--which means I watch all the nerd channels. You know what they are--the History Channel, the Discovery Channel, NatGeo, Discovery Science, History International, etc. I watch shows dealing with astronomy, cosmology, dinosaurs, you name it. One cannot watch many of these programs without coming across statements like the one McGrath notes above. Scientific theories are always changing, always being revised, many being completely discarded and replaced. They are always getting it wrong.

Now is that a bad thing? Of course, not. Scientific discovery is a road paved with wrong ideas, but as we learn and discover further, we grow. Isn't that wonderful?

There's something else I've noted in the scientific community from watching those nifty little nerd channels. Scientists are always arguing with each other. They seldom all agree on their theories and some are even ridiculed for their ideas by their colleagues. Sometimes even, the ones who are ridiculed turn out to be right. Sometimes a scientist comes along who challenges the prevailing opinions, is ridiculed, but in the end, through his diligent experimentation and research, it turns out that he was right and he changes the face of science for a few decades (until the next guy comes along doing the same thing).

All of this is easily evident to the untutored layman like me. Yet at the same time it is astounding how arrogant the scientific community is. Imagine, for instance, a guy like Richard Dawkins. An intelligent man by all accounts, well-learned, articulate, funny, thorough, logical, Dawkins is also arrogant--arrogant to the point of expecting people to radically change their worldview because of a scientific theory. Of course, as McGrath points out, even if one were to accept the theory of evolution as genuine it does not then necessarily follow that one's theism or Christianity be discarded.

Nevertheless, here is Dawkins--who cannot prove his theory. He may be able to point to a mound of scientific evidence, yet the necessary proof is as of yet unproduced. But Dawkins ridicules those who do not accept the theory as fact, even though scientific theories have a way of being found wanting and, after being replaced by new and better ones, being cast upon the forgotten heaps of antiquated errors that litter the landscape of scientific history.

Please, guys. Keep studying, keep learning, keep discovering. I shall watch with an interested eye. But, at the same time, how about adding in a dash of humility to that theoretical cauldron? The stew you are offering will go down much better if you do.

A little more from McGrath:

Historians and philosophers of science have produced long lists of scientific theories, each of which was believed by one generation to be the best possible representation of reality, yet which were abandoned by later generations, in the light of new discoveries and increasingly precise measurements of what was already known. Some theories have proved remarkably stable; many have been radically modified, and others abandoned altogether.--Alister McGrath, Dawkins' God, p.104, paperback, Blackwell Publishing.

And:

Scientific theorizing is thus provisional. In other words, it offers what is believed to be the best account of the experimental observations currently available. Radical theory change takes place either when it is believed that there is a better explanation of what is currently known, or when new information comes to light which forces us to see what is presently known in a new light. Unless we know the future, it is impossible to take an absolute position on the question of whether any given theory is "right." What can be said--and, indeed, must be said--is that this is believed to be the best explanation currently available. History simply makes fools of those who argue that every aspect of the current theoretical situation is true for all time. The problem is that we don't know which of today's theories will be discarded as interesting failures by future generations.

If theories are thus subject to erosion, what of worldviews that are based upon them? . . .Alister McGrath, Dawkins' God, p.104,5, paperback, Blackwell Publishing.

For My Muse

My paltry prose is always read by you and what life its flame contains was fanned by your encouragement. So in the midst of all my poor attempts at punditry I take this opportunity to diverge from my regular line of postings and make this trifling offering to you. May your love for me be requited a hundredfold and may God's grace be forever yours. When I think of you I feel like Shakespeare must have felt when he penned sonnet #29:

When, in disgrace with fortune and men's eyes,
I all alone beweep my outcast state,
And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries,
And look upon myself and curse my fate,
Wishing me like to one more rich in hope,
Featured like him, like him with friends possessed,
Desiring this man's art and that man's scope,
With what I most enjoy contented least;
Yet in these thoughts myself almost despising,
Haply I think on thee, and then my state,
Like to the lark at break of day arising
From sullen earth, sings hymns at heaven's gate;
For my sweet love remembered such wealth brings
That then I scorn to change my state with kings.

Peter's Blunder--and mine

I was busy preparing the next new sermon for the Spurgeon Archive Addendum this morning when disaster happened. The sermon is No. 1823 "Peter's Blunder: A Lesson to Ourselves" and it will be the next one up. It would have been up this morning before church but half way through editing it something happened to reset my computer and, no, I had not saved it up until that point. That's my blunder.

But it is an excellent sermon and I can't wait to make it available. Here is a quotation from it which will serve as a teaser:

"'But I am strong,' say you. Nonsense, you are weak as water. You dream of perfection, but you are a mass of wants, and infirmities, and conceits; and if it were not for the infinite mercy of God, who deals tenderly with you, you would soon have most painfully to know it to your own dishonor, and to the grief of your brethren round about you. Peter is Peter still, notwithstanding what grace has done."--CHS

Let that thought sink in and I shall have the entire sermon up, if not this afternoon then perhaps tomorrow.

I Smell a Set-Up

My first reaction to Richard Dawkins is that he comes across as an arrogant ass (in the King James sense, of course). I am sure I am not the first who has thought that or even verbalized it, but there it is. Of course, it has nothing to do with whether he is right or not. It is not an argument, it's an observation.

I will say this for him, his prose is written in a pleasing style. He is quite the penman.

I can tell it is going to take me a while to read this book because on every page or so I find something about which I want to protest or point out. That's what brings us here, after midnight, when I have to get up early and go to work in the morning. But I won't be able to sleep unless I blog this now.

It starts with Dawkins' stated purpose for writing this book. To do justice to his stated purpose would entail quoting the entire Preface. However, I believe the reader can get the general idea from the third paragraph of the Preface which goes like this:

"I suspect--well, I am sure--that there are lots of people out there who have been brought up in some religion or other, are unhappy in it, don't believe it, or are worried about the evils that are done in its name; people who feel vague yearnings to leave their parents' religion and wish they could, but just don't realize that leaving is an option. If you are one of them, this book is for you. It is intended to raise consciousness--raise consciousness to the fact that to be an atheist is a realistic aspiration, and a brave and splendid one. You can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled. That is the first of my consciousness-raising messages. I also want to raise consciousness in three other ways, which I'll come on to. . . ."--Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Preface, paragraph 3.

So there you have it. Mr. Dawkins wishes to convert us, right? Wrong. He only wishes to convert "open-minded" people. He knows, on the other hand, that fundamentalists--"dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads"--are incapable of being converted. They are not open-minded. Rather, they are victims of indoctrination--and lacking the intelligence to overcome it.

From page 28 of the paperback version (emphasis mine):

"If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down. What presumptuous optimism! Of course, dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads are immune to argument, their resistance built up over years of childhood indoctrination using methods that took centuries to mature (whether by evolution or design). Among the more effective immunological devices is a dire warning to avoid even opening a book like this, which is surely a work of Satan. But I believe there are plenty of open-minded people out there: people whose childhood indoctrination was not too insidious, or for other reasons didn't 'take', or whose native intelligence is strong enough to overcome it. Such free spirits should need only a little encouragement to break free of the vice of religion altogether."--Dawkins, The God Delusion, p.28, paperback.

I'm being set up. Can you see it? If at the end of this book Mr. Dawkins has converted me, that means I am "intelligent" and "open-minded" and a "free spirit" who was able to overcome the insidious indoctrination I received as a child. If, however, I remain unconvinced by Mr. Dawkins' impeccable logic then I am most certainly some "dyed-in-the-wool faith-head" who is just too stupid or too stubborn to bow to the great Oxford professor's wisdom. It is an appeal to pride and elitism. All the smart, beautiful people are atheists!

Hogwash. What if someone reads Dawkins' treatise and finds it (gasp) unconvincing? What if, when read, the logic is found to be full of holes? What if, when weighed in the balance, the book is found to be, in fact, very light on the logic side and very, very heavy on the rhetoric side?

Dawkins is fond of pointing out the worst in religious faith and peddling it as the norm. Thinking people, however, shouldn't buy that nonsense. For an example see the second paragraph I quoted above. Is it true, as Dawkins states, that many religious people will be warned away from his book, convinced not to read it, because some religious leader(s) will pronounce the work as a work of Satan and therefore, by extension, those who read it as participating in some evil act? Yes, that's true.

And let me also say (and I think Dawkins would agree) that if the Bible is true, then what Dawkins has produced is an evil work. In fact, it constitutes a high crime against heaven. That is, if the Bible is true (and I certainly believe that it is). Dawkins does not. In fact, he laughs at a bumper sticker which he once saw which refers to blasphemy as a victimless crime.

But it does not then follow that to read his work is an evil act. In fact, I would argue that it is a good and necessary act to read his work and engage it on an intellectual level (yes, Mr. Dawkins, some dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads do that sort of thing). This sort of diatribe needs to be answered, and answered well--with reason.

"Test everything; hold fast what is good"--St. Paul.

"Buy the truth and sell it not."--Proverbs

The Christian faith is a well-reasoned and reasonable faith which has stood the test of time--as well as an endless barrage of attacks from well-educated elitists like Dawkins. Those attacks have been traditionally answered and refuted by well-educated, thinking, reasoning men of faith who hold to the truth with such tenacity that they are not afraid to be engaged by high-minded, holier-than-thou (yes, I think it is an appropriate description of Dawkins' demeanor) zealots. Truth does not fear error. There are answers to the questions and apparent problems which the skeptics pose and Christianity is a thinking man's religion, completely intellectually and logically satisfying.

And neither will I fall prey to Dawkins' set-up. Dawkins will have to do more than merely assert that reasonable and intelligent and open-minded people will succumb to his wisdom and logic. He will have to prove it.

I have another thought which occurred to me while reading Dawkins that I will blog about later today. It is a tie-in to the religious liberty posts. I hope you will come back for it.

Everybody's Headed for the Weekend!

I just finished Alister McGrath's Dawkins' God. McGrath makes some excellent points and seems to dissect some of Dawkins' more inept assertions rather nicely. Of course, I haven't read Dawkins himself yet, but his The God Delusion is next on my list. More thoughts on this later.

Hopefully I will be able to blog something later tonight. The evenings this weekend are looking rather busy, though. My boys and I are going to play basketball tonight. Tomorrow night I have the girls. Then I am spending the entire weekend with all four of them, so I am looking forward to some reading of Tolkien, no doubt, along with a quiz being given to my oldest boy over a book he is supposed to have finished by Friday night (the bio of David Livingstone published by Moody).

So . . . we have on the agenda some 19th century missions, some Tolkien, some Disney, and some twenty-first century atheism. (Is there some sort of subconscious bridge there, some sort of step-by-step progression?) Speaking of the latter, at least Dawkins, for all his flaws, is colorful and, I am told, an interesting writer who holds a disdain for post-modern thinking. A fundamentalist atheist (or would he be an atheist fundamentalist?) . . . should be a blast! I am looking forward to being shocked and offended at his over-the-top rhetoric and I plan to answer some of his points here on the blog as I know he will get my juices flowing. I only hope I can match his rhetoric and enthusiasm.

BTW - here's a rather poor photo of a large-mouth bass my son caught the other day in his grandfather's pond.


It weighed in at 3.5 lbs. Not bad.

Baptist John Leland on Religious Liberty

I found this interesting little page on-line and decided to link it here. The page belongs to Pastor David L. Brown, Ph.D. I recommend you go over there and read the entire paragraph as it further supports what I have been blogging here. This is one aspect of my Baptist heritage of which I am particularly (ahem) proud. Here is a teaser:

During the summer of 2001 my family and I took a trip to Virginia and North Carolina to do family tree research and visit some historic locations. As we were traveling "the Constitution Route" on highway 20 in Virginia, I came across an interesting monument about seven miles east of Orange. On it was the embossed head of John Leland, the influential Baptist preacher and champion of religious liberty. It is believed that the monument marks the location where James Madison and John Leland met to discuss Madison’s candidacy for Virginia delegate to the Convention to ratify the Federal Constitution. . . .

Below are some of the quotations I promised from John Leland on religious liberty.

Let it suffice on this head to say, that it is not possible in the nature of things to establish religion by human laws without perverting the design of civil law and oppressing the people (from The Yankee Spy, John Leland writing under the pen name of Jack Nipps, Boston, 1794).

Is it the duty of a deist to support that which he believes to be a cheat and imposition? Is it the duty of the Jew to support the religion of Jesus Christ, when he really believes that he was an imposter? Must the papist be forced to pay men for preaching down the supremacy of the pope, whom they are sure is the head of the church? Government has no more to do with the religious opinions of men than it has with the principles of mathematics (from The Yankee Spy, John Leland writing under the pen name of Jack Nipps, Boston, 1794).

To say that religion cannot stand without a state establishment is not only contrary to fact (as has been proved already) but is a contradiction in phrase. Religion must have stood a time before any law could have been made about it; and if it did stand almost three hundred years without law it can still stand without it (from The Connecticut Dissenters Strong Box, Number One, New London 1802).

If government can answer for individuals at the day of judgment, let men be controlled by it in religious matters; otherwise let men be free (from The Connecticut Dissenters Strong Box, Number One, New London 1802.

To read in the New Testament, that the Lord has ordained that those that preach the gospel shall live by its institutions and precepts, sounds very harmonical; but to read in a state constitution, that the legislature shall require men to maintain teachers of piety, religion and morality, sounds very discordant (from The Yankee Spy, John Leland writing under the pen name of Jack Nipps, Boston, 1794).

In the second article [of the Massachusetts state constitution of 1780] it is said, 'is the right and duty of all men publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being.' This article would read much better in a catechism than in a state constitution, and sound more concordant in a pulpit than in a statehouse (from The Yankee Spy, John Leland writing under the pen name of Jack Nipps, Boston, 1794).

...[A]nd the reason why public worship is enjoined (required) by authority, and private worship is omitted, is only to pave the way for some religious establishment by human law, and force taxes from the people to support avaricious priests. (from The Yankee Spy, John Leland writing under the pen name of Jack Nipps, Boston, 1794).

What leads legislators into this error, is confounding sins and crimes together -- making no difference between moral evil and state rebellion: not considering that a man may be infected with moral evil, and yet be guilty of no crime, punishable by law. If a man worships one God, three Gods, twenty Gods, or no God -- if he pays adoration one day in a week, seven days or no day -- wherein does he injure the life, liberty or property of another? Let any or all these actions be supposed to be religious evils of an enormous size, yet they are not crimes to be punished by laws of state, which extend no further, in justice, than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor (from The Yankee Spy, John Leland writing under the pen name of Jack Nipps, Boston, 1794).

In a well regulated state it will be the business of the legislature to prevent sectaries of different denominations from molesting and disturbing each other; to ordain that no part of the community shall be permitted to perplex and harass the other for any supposed heresy, but that each individual shall be allowed to have and enjoy, profess and maintain his own system of religion, provided it does not issue in overt acts of treason against the state undermining the peace and order of society. (from The Yankee Spy, John Leland writing under the pen name of Jack Nipps, Boston, 1794).

* "The notion of a Christian commonwealth should be exploded forever...Government should protect every man in thinking and speaking freely, and see that one does not abuse another. The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence, whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians." - A Chronicle of His Time in Virginia.

* "Truth disdains the aid of law for its defense — it will stand upon its own merits." - Right of Conscience Inalienable.

* "Every man must give account of himself to God, and therefore every man ought to be at liberty to serve God in a way that he can best reconcile to his conscience. If government can answer for individuals at the day of judgment, let men be controlled by it in religious matters; otherwise, let men be free." - Right of Conscience Inalienable.

Make no mistake. The idea of the separation of church and state is something for which Baptists fought for a very long time. Leland was perhaps one of the most vociferous, but he was certainly not alone (as I hope to demonstrate as I continue to expand upon this theme).

And I agree with John Leland and those early American Baptists. The marriage of church and state is an insufferable evil and a plague upon genuine religion and will remain so for as long as this world remains in its fallen condition. I will attempt to provide more history on the subject first, then I will attempt to demonstrate why I believe this to be so using Scripture and sound reason. Then later, I plan to make some arguments supporting my opinion that our current federal government violates this first amendment principle and usurps the role of the individual and church in its current day-to-day operations. For now I would just like you to think about an old adage that distills quite succinctly my viewpoint, then come back later for more.

"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."