A Musical String and a Joke

The credit for this one goes to Meredith:

Q: What would a pirate from Boston say?

A: (see below)

*************************

There's a series of books being published that I like a lot. It's called the "Great Discovery Series" and is basically a collection of biographies about certain great discoveries in the history of science and the people who made them. The twist on that theme is that the authors of these books are often novelists by trade, so it makes for very good reading. Of course, in a series like this one of the books has to be about Einstein. I read it recently, and enjoyed it a lot. One of the things that the author talks about (in terms of modern developments in the search for a Theory of Everything) is strings and superstrings. These are multidimensional objects that obey a wave equation, just like electrons orbiting a nucleus, or sound being emitted from a speaker. Apparently one of the goals of string theory is to derive elementary particles from these strings in such a way that the different particles are strings vibrating at different frequencies and dimensions - or something like that (if one of my physicist friends reads this, they can set the record straight). :-} Under this scenario, the whole universe is a great symphony of vibrating strings combining in one great melody and harmony. It made me think of the medieval idea that the universe was singing and making music in praise of God. That's what we mean when we talk about "the music of the spheres" - the spheres in which the planets and stars were embedded were goverened by "Intelligences", angelic beings, who moved the spheres in circular (aka "harmonic") motion by their love toward and praise of God. Thus, the whole universe wall filled with beautiful music, if we could only hear it. And why can't we hear it? Because it's constantly going on in the background around us since before we are born, and our ears are very good at tuning out "background" sounds. Anyway, I thought it was a cool coming back around "full circle" (pardon pun), that now the major theory of elementary particles and gravitation is so "musical". We're back to a singing universe!

*******************************

Answer: "Aaaaahh!!!!"

;-)

A Couple Quick Thoughts

Wow, it has been a while since I last wrote anything! Here are a couple of thoughts that have come up today...

1) In Luke 12:54-56, Jesus says "When you see a cloud rising in the west, you say at once, 'A shower is coming.' And so it happens. And when you see the south wind blowing, you say, 'There will be scorching heat,' and it happens. You hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of earth and sky, but why do you not know how to interpret the present time?" This seems to me to speak to the issue of science vs. faith. Jesus is clearly acknowledging that the natural world obeys the laws of nature - that there is order in it and that we can predict certain effects from certain causes, such as rain from a west wind, and heat from a south wind (in Judean geography, at any rate). But He rails against what seems like "scientific naturalism": the notion that a scientific understanding of the world is all there is, calling the crowds hypocrites for being able to "do science" while missing the crux of history - Jesus' incarnation, ministry, and approaching death and resurrection. I think it's just a little earlier in Luke that Jesus says "the Kingdom of God has come near to you", or something to that extent. One more quote to go with this thought: in George MacDonald's book Phantastes, one character says of her husband, "I must believe my senses, as he cannot believe beyond his." I don't remember the details of the context, but I distinctly rememer thinking of it in terms of "scientific naturalism" vs. the evidence for Christianity. I thought it fit well with this thought about "interpreting the appearances of earth and sky but failing to recognize the times".

2) In 2 Corinthians 5:17, Paul writes "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come." It occured to me that there might be a connection between what Paul is writing regarding theology, and theories of biology - particularly relating to evolution. In some previous entries (either on this blog or my Xanga, I don't remember right now), I talked about the concept of an organ, or an organism. The idea (from Kant and his contemporaries) was that and organism was something like a self-contained thing. You couldn't make it simply from it's parts, but it generated itself. In this regard it is much like Chomsky's view of language as an organ. Organicity is something that evolution by natural selection does not do well at explaining, and even evolutionary theorists are quick to point this out (although without any diminution of their expectation that some other theory of naturalistic evolution will do the trick, if we can only figure out what it is). (Personally, I have a hard time seeing any feasible way around organicity.) Now when Paul says that anyone in Christ is a new creation, it makes me think of this issue of organisms. An organism must be created out-right (so far as I can see - although the jury is definitely still out). If I may stretch exegesis just a bit and apply the biological concept of an organism to Paul's teaching here, we could say that our spirituality is organic; and more than that, it is organically fallen. In order to be saved, our old organ must die, and a new organ - a redeemed organ - must be created in its place. We cannot "evolve" from spiritual fallenness to spiritual redemption on our own - that would be to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps. Instead, God must re-create us as an entirely new organism - a new creation. It is all of God by grace, not by works. All this begs the question, however, is this stretching exegesis too much? It may be intriguing (I think it is), but it is accurate? I wonder what the theories of biology were in Paul's time and in his location... Did the Romans, the Hellenists, the Jews believe that creatures evolved? Did they have some view of organicity? Is Paul himself drawing any parallels between the scientific thought of the day and the theological out-workings of God's salvation? I suppose Aristotle might be a good place to look for the first two questions. For the last question, I'm not sure how one would go about answering it...

That's all for now. Time to go to sleep!

An Evangelical Manifesto

This past Wednesday in Washington, D.C., a group of Evangelical leaders published a document called "An Evangelical Manifesto". The aims of the Manifesto are 1) to reclaim the term "Evangelical" from the (unjustified) negative connotations which have accrued to it in recent years, 2) to issue a call to reform and renewal within the Evangelical community itself, and 3) to reposition and affirm Evangelicalism in the public life. To read the Manifesto, visit the website of An Evangelical Manifesto.

I like Mike

Well, I'm showing my hand and betting on Mike Huckabee. I have been very impressed with his answers in debates, and his responses to attacks. I must say I also liked his Christmas ad. :-) I think he has a really neat combination of tried-and-true Republican and Democrat values, taking the best from both worlds rather than being pidgeon-holed into both the good and the not-so-good of either party. I also like his take on the question of whether people of faith (especially pastors like him) have any business being in politics.

I like Mike.

Thank you, C. S. Lewis

C. S. Lewis has become a significant influence for me rather quickly. This has happened in perhaps a rather unusual way, since it started with his books on literary criticism rather than, say, the Chronicles of Narnia or Mere Christianity (for whatever odd reason, I find Mere Christianity really hard to read - I've been sitting at half-way through for the longest time...). Most recently I've been reading his collection of essays "On Stories". In one of the early essays he talks about the difference between his style of reading and that of a former pupil of his. Whereas the pupil enjoyed suspense and danger for their own sake, Lewis enjoyed them in so far as they were extraordinary. It was not enough for a person to be faced with death by freezing - they had to be faced with death by freezing *on the moon*. It was not enough for an enemy French ship to be sighted on the horizon - it had to be a *pirate* ship.

This last comment led me to re-read Treasure Island, which I hadn't read since...1992? (I think we lived on Cypress Lane when I read it.) Treasure Island was the first book that I remember really getting into and really enjoying, so perhaps it was fitting that it was also the first book that I have ever read a second time (not counting pieces like Othello that I read more than once in school). And it was fun. :-) I had forgotten almost everything in the plot, beyond the basic outline (boy gets hold of map, goes to island, faces off with Long John Silver, makes it home safe and sound), but as I read I remembered more and more about what was about to happen. I think the biggest surprise was the fate of Silver. My (also dim) memories of the movie interfered here and led me to expect young Hawkins to help Silver push out to see in a little rowboat. I must say, the book's version is much more satisfying.

I also found some recordings of C. S. Lewis' BBC broadcasts and found that his voice and accent are not at all like I had imagined!