The more I learn, the more I think that this brief encounter sums up to me the reality that lurks behind dismissive terms like “denier.” The so-called global warmind deniers are looking more and more to me like the voice of science, while the alarmists are more and more looking to me like deeply devoted protestors seeking political leverage. This particular Greenpeace activists approach of “no, I’ve never checked, but I believe lobby groups” is replicated by politicians in Copenhagen who are in positions to make decisions that affect us all.

This is why the alarmists do not want open dialogue. They want the ear of those in power. This is why, as noted earlier, their response to skepticism must consist of derision and sarcasm, along with a healthy dose of well poisoning. The science just isn’t there for them to appeal to it.

Hat tip to Christian News NZ for this interview.

By reason! No…. wait… that’s not it…. Ah yes, politics and force.

Props to Whale Oil for drawing my attention to this.

Whatever else he thinks about anything, Professor Robert Winston just won some brownie points with me. He calls the worship of New Zealand’s celebrities a “false idolatry” that glorifies traits that, in the big picture, really don’t matter all that much.

Lord Winston believes Kiwis do not value intellectuals and ignore the worst behaviour of our sports stars. “New Zealand celebrates attributes which really aren’t that important,” he said.

“You do it with sportsmen and you don’t do it particularly with intellectuals, for example. In New Zealand, being an intellectual is slightly disadvantageous and is often seen by the press as being something which is rather well, not to be celebrated.

“On the other hand, if you are a great rugby player, maybe parts of your private life which are pretty appalling, will go ignored.

Check out the audio at the news story.

If I had a Christmas list, Winston would be on it.

Glenn Peoples

I just discovered this thanks to Climate Skeptic.

A kid and his dad in the States took it upon themselves to perform and release data analysis that NASA’s Goddard Institute isn’t willing to do (or if they are, they certainly aren’t telling anyone). They showed in a fairly uncontroversial way that data shopwing warming trends is highly suspect due to the apparent failure of those who depend on that data to check for factors that might interfere with readings (i.e. factors other than climate). The factor these two have identified is a fairly simply one: The difference between readings in major urban centres vs readings in less industrialised rural centres. Observe:

Not being an expert myself, I invite critique of this method of analysis.

The podcast is back. Here’s part three of the series on philosophy of mind. We’ve moved from dualism in part one through to physicalism in this episode. I look at epiphenomenialism, reductionism, nonreductive physicalism and a constitution view.

As promised, here’s some suggested reading for those who want to look into the subject futher:

Nancey Murphy, “Nonreductive Physicalism and Free Will” http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/tabid/68/id/10501/Default.aspx

Nancey Murphy, “Is “Nonreductive Physicalism” an Oxymoron?” http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/tabid/68/id/10865/Default.aspx

Nancey Murphy and Warren Brown, Did My Neurons Make Me Do It?: Philosophical and Neurobiological Reflections on Moral Responsibility and Free Will (Oxford University Press, 2009).

Joel B. Green and Stuart L. Palmer (eds), In Search of the Soul: Four Views of the Mind-Body Problem (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2005). This volume includes contributions from Stewart Goetz (Substance Dualism), William Hasker (Emergent Dualism), Nancey Murphy (Nonreductive Physicalism) and Kevin Corcoran (Constitution View).

Joel B. Green (ed.), What About the Soul?: Neuroscience and Christian Anthropology (Abingdon Press, 2001). This volume includes contributions from Bill T. Arnold, D. Gareth  Jones, Joel B. Green, Patrick D. Miller, Charles E. Gutenson, Stuart L. Palmer, William Hasker, Michael Rynkiewich, Virginia T. Holeman, Lawson G. Stone and Malcolm Jeeves.

Warren S. Brown, Nancey Murphy and H. Newton Maloney (eds), Whatever Happened to the Soul: Scientific and Theological Portraits of Human Nature (Augsburg Fortress, 1998). This volume includes contributions from Nancey Murphy, H. Newton Malony, Ray S. Anderson, V. Elving Anderson, Francisco J. Ayala, Warren S. Brown Jr., Joel B. Green, Malcolm Jeeves, H. Newton Malony and Stephen G. Post.

Kevin Corcoran, Rethinking Human Nature: A Christian Materialist Alternative to the Soul (Baker Academic, 2006).

The website of Timothy O’Connor, featuring a number of articles.

Happy reading, and I hope you find this episode interesting!

Glenn Peoples

Episode 031: In Search of the Soul Part 3 [ 54:14 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

A. J. Ayer

It has been a while since I added an installment in the “Nuts and Bolts” series, where I lay out some of the fundamental ideas and terms used in philosophy (and I’ll do some in theology as well). This time I’m briefly covering the perspective called logical positivism, a point of view with important consequences in science, epistemology, ethics, philosophy of religion and probably a whole lot more.

Logical positivism was primarily an earlier to mid twentieth century movement, arising among a group of philosophers now referred to as The Vienna Circle, but I won’t wade through the history of the movement here. Logical positivism is not a standpoint on what is true and what is not. Instead, it’s a standpoint on what kind of utterances count as real statements that have meaning.

Read the rest of the entry »

Mark Strom

Mark Strom has been the principal of Laidlaw College for nearly five years now. When I was there from 1999 – 2001 it was the Bible College of New Zealand. His five year contract is up for renewal in January 2010, and he has indicated that he will stay on until September 2010 at which time he will take his study leave, ending his time as principal.

From Laidlaw’s press release a couple of days ago:

“During  his term as Principal, Mark has undertaken a recalibration of Laidlaw College, retaining its strong biblical focus, while moving towards training students not only for mission and pastoral work, but also for engagement with society at all levels”, says National Governing Council Chair Graham Burt. “Mark has inspired staff and students alike towards this goal. We greatly appreciate his contribution.”

Mark’s time in office has seen some big changes for the college, and all for the better. First was the re-branding and re-naming of the college, taking the name of Robert Laidlaw (a worthy New Zealand name if ever there was one). Secondly however, during Mark’s time the college has made a turn towards a more robust vision of Christian scholarship. While papers and courses in biblical studies, theology, church history and missions have obviously continued, major developments have beenmade in the school of counselling, and very positive noises have been made about branching into the humanities, offering more a of a Christian liberal arts education than before. Not all of this has come to fruition yet, but Rome wasn’t built in a day, and it is the change in direction that is really encouraging to see. It is the directive for a Christian higher education that stimulates “engagement with society at all levels” that the press release refers to that has been particularly exciting to me. There was already potential for more than the college was offering before Mark came along. What he’s done is realise a good chunk of that potential and then help built a great deal more potential yet.

I’ll be keeping a very interested eye on developments on the Henderson campus to see what unfolds in 2010 for Laidlaw College, but I have no doubts at all that it has been improved by Mark’s vision and work there.

Glenn Peoples

Do a quick Google search for a combination of these two words: “Christmas” and “financial.” Pretty much all the search results will have one thing in common: They advise people to act now, or to act in a certain way, to avoid the “financial hangover” that comes with Christmas. For families that are not wealthy, it can be a time of year when debts are accrued and relationships are strained as a result of financial difficulty.

Maybe you’ve had similar thoughts to me at times, when I look at the bills that I need to pay off, only to add with a note of despair – “and there’s still Christmas to contend with!” Wait – contend with? How did this happen? Christmas is the time when Christians remember and celebrate the coming of Jesus into the world. It should be a time of joy and (nerd that I am) theological reflection (what better time to learn about the doctrine of the incarnation and read a little Athanasius?).

Shouldn’t all this be a blessing to us? Instead it has become a contributor to poverty, family bust ups, alcohol abuse and domestic violence.  If you’re a Christian, there’s a special kind of offensiveness about this, a real disrespect and disregard. The celebration of the humble birth of the Son of God into a poor family, few gifts to speak of, little worldly acclaim at the time, has been transformed into a frantic orgy of spending, consumption, exploitation, greed and commercialism to the point where people will undermine the well-being of their family to take part in the gruesome game.

This is wrong in every way. Our children aren’t going to like it (but they will get used to it), but we’ve decided not to be a part of it. If you know us and might have been inclined to spend something on us, please don’t. If you really have to spend the money, buy a goat for a poor village in my name and drop me a line telling me about it. That’d be cool. But ideally, just don’t spend it at all (unless you were already going to give money to charity). Christmas was never meant to be about reaching into your wallet. It’s even less about lining other people’s wallets, people who get rich because of Christmas. The downside for others is that we won’t be buying them anything either. Instead of buying stuff with money we don’t have, wasting a good chunk of it by eating to excess and then clawing ourselves back to the state of affairs we’re in now, we’re doing something else. We’re going to celebrate Christmas.

Oh, and visit http://www.buynothingchristmas.org/

Merry Christmas

Glenn Peoples

David Burge is  friend of mine in Auckland. I first met him in person in 1999 when Ruth and I moved up there as I began my studies in divinity at the Bible College of New Zealand (now Laidlaw College). I met him through the Conditional Immortality Association of New Zealand. He’s the Pastor at Takanini Church of Christ, and he and his wife have eight children.

In mid November we got an email telling us:

This last weekend David experienced sudden blurred vision. On Monday he was referred to the emergency eye clinic, then on to Middlemore, then Auckland hospital and after many tests, the doctors have found the cause: Dave has acute lymphoblastic leukemia. He has started chemotherapy.

I’ve been following David’s prgress at his blog. It’s incredible to see the positivity that he exudes in spite of his circumstances, and there is absolutely no doubt that knowing and trusting Christ is making all the difference in the world. If you’re so inclined, please join me in praying for Dave and his family. Thanks.

Francis Collins’ reputation is as is the brilliant scientist who cracked the human genome. Because of his outstanding qualifications, not too long ago he was appointed as the National Institutes of Health (NIH). It’s also no secret – because Dr Collins makes it no secret – that he is a Christian. It is the latter fact that has rubbed Steven Pinker the wrong way.

It’s not, Pinker wants us to rest assured, the mere fact that Dr Collins is a Christian that’s a problem. “But in Collins’s case,” Pinker tells us, “it is not a matter of private belief, but public advocacy.” What Pinker would have preferred is a policy of don’t ask – don’t tell. What we really can’t have, you see, is for people to know that a public advocate of science is a Christian (my comment here is – “too late!”). And why is that?

The major concern for Pinker is here:

Collins, in his book, eggs on fellow evangelical Christians in their anti-scientific beliefs. He tells them that they are “right to hold fast to the truths of the Bible” and to “the certainty that the claims of atheistic materialism must be steadfastly resisted.” Granted, he is not a young-earth or intelligent-design creationist. But he has stated that God interacts with creation, in particular, that he designed the evolutionary process to ensure that human intelligence, morality, and Judaeo-Christian religious belief would evolve. That is far more than just expressing an opinion. That is advocacy, which gives incalculable encouragement the forces that have been hostile to science for the past eight years.

So instead of Collins’ work serving as an obvious counter-example to the stereotypical and clearly false claim that religious people are enemies of science, instead Pinker only welcomes Christians who stay in the closet, so that the myth can be perpetuated! Unfortunately, Pinker’s failure to voice equal condemnation of the public role of the likes of Richard Dawkins puts the lie to any thought that his concern is a genuinely scientific one. Dawkins holds a position as Oxford’s Professor For The Understanding Of Science, and yet he has gained more fame in recent years for his advocacy of atheism than for anything else.

Pinker’s rationale is clear: We want Science to be positioned in opposition to religion, so nobody who advocates religion should be welcomed into the hallowed halls of science. Those who fly off the handle at God, on the other hand, we welcome with open arms. Dr Pinker, if you want to convince people that there are no gatekeepers, trying to “expel” the openly religious due to a desire to push the view that science is atheism, then – as the kids say online, you’re doing it wrong.

Glenn Peoples