Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 29
Creation and CERN
I have an image – theologically flawed I know – that while scientists are discovering new depths of detail in subatomic structure, one of the things that slows them up is that God is still busy inventing it all, just a couple of steps ahead of them.
Friday, October 10
Interpreting science fiction
I was listening to a Radio 4 programme last night called "I've never seen star wars". In this programme they make celebrities do things they have never done, and talk about their experiences. I should have said 'minor celebrities', because i've never heard of them.
Last night they made some poor woman read the book "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", because she had never read any science fiction. She was not impressed, denouncing it for not having any relationships of any substance in it, and expressing a preference for 'Sex in the City'. Well, on that last point alone I can tell that i am never going to get aong with her.
But I think she was mistaken to dismiss the whole genre of Science Fiction based on one book not having oestrogen-laced relationships.
Cynics dismiss SciFi as frothy nonsense about laser guns and space ships. But I think they are looking at it from the wrong perspective. Yes, there is the action and adventure of a good 'Star Wars' shoot-em-up, and I have to confess that Star Wars is pretty shallow in other areas. But the reason that I like SciFi is:
It defines a hypothetical culture and then explores how that society would work.
The technology, planets, spaceships, aliens and laser guns provide a background context for the hypothesis, and sometimes form it's main axioms, but really the story is about how people (or beings) behave in that hypothetical culture. Thus, SciFi is just a technique by which authors are able to make a clean break from our society, our culture, our technology, our planet, and look at how things would be if it were different.
The Androids book mentioned above was made into the cult classic film 'Bladerunner'. I love the film, not because it has action and robots, but because it looks at society. It presents a divided society, where the privileged elite live quiet sophisticated lives in tall buildings, isolated from the chaotic masses on the streets. It looks at a society with a sizable ethnic minority contributing to the economy of the city. On top of that layer it asks the questions of how that society relates to robots that are so advanced as to be hard to distinguish from humans - and it's not a pretty picture, exposing our natural prejudice against the 'other' that is a mirror of ourselves.
But on top of that there is the complex relationship between the hero of the story and the Androids he is supposed to 'retire'. And at the end, the final condemned android fights with the man sent to kill him, but then saves his life. There is almost something Christ-like about him. And the android's mercy is seen to triumph over mankind's inhumanity.
And they say it is frothy nonsence?
Last night they made some poor woman read the book "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", because she had never read any science fiction. She was not impressed, denouncing it for not having any relationships of any substance in it, and expressing a preference for 'Sex in the City'. Well, on that last point alone I can tell that i am never going to get aong with her.
But I think she was mistaken to dismiss the whole genre of Science Fiction based on one book not having oestrogen-laced relationships.
Cynics dismiss SciFi as frothy nonsense about laser guns and space ships. But I think they are looking at it from the wrong perspective. Yes, there is the action and adventure of a good 'Star Wars' shoot-em-up, and I have to confess that Star Wars is pretty shallow in other areas. But the reason that I like SciFi is:
It defines a hypothetical culture and then explores how that society would work.
The technology, planets, spaceships, aliens and laser guns provide a background context for the hypothesis, and sometimes form it's main axioms, but really the story is about how people (or beings) behave in that hypothetical culture. Thus, SciFi is just a technique by which authors are able to make a clean break from our society, our culture, our technology, our planet, and look at how things would be if it were different.
The Androids book mentioned above was made into the cult classic film 'Bladerunner'. I love the film, not because it has action and robots, but because it looks at society. It presents a divided society, where the privileged elite live quiet sophisticated lives in tall buildings, isolated from the chaotic masses on the streets. It looks at a society with a sizable ethnic minority contributing to the economy of the city. On top of that layer it asks the questions of how that society relates to robots that are so advanced as to be hard to distinguish from humans - and it's not a pretty picture, exposing our natural prejudice against the 'other' that is a mirror of ourselves.
But on top of that there is the complex relationship between the hero of the story and the Androids he is supposed to 'retire'. And at the end, the final condemned android fights with the man sent to kill him, but then saves his life. There is almost something Christ-like about him. And the android's mercy is seen to triumph over mankind's inhumanity.
And they say it is frothy nonsence?
Tuesday, August 19
Wikipedia, Todd Bentley and faith healing
I was looking at the terribly biased Wikipedia article against Todd Bentley. It is fairly up to date, even including details of his recent marriage difficulties. (The devil likes to strike the shepherd so that the sheep will be scattered).
I always thought that Wikipedia articles were supposed to be neutral, and yet the article is clearly written by an opponent and shows quite terrible bias. Yes they have checked out negative the stuff they quote to make sure it is true etc, but there is no balancing positive information.
They also throw doubt on his claims of faith healing, putting the phrase in inverted commas to indicate their scepticism. In the discussion they justify this by saying that until there is scientific proof of faith healing, they can’t write it as factual, and therefore have to put the inverted commas, and refer to the Wikipedia article on faith healing.
The trouble is, science is the wrong tool to measure faith healing.
For one thing, it’s impossible to get evidence from a doctor because no matter how miraculous it is they will never say ‘God did it’ or ‘it’s a miracle’ – only that ‘the patient went through a spontaneous recovery’. There is therefore a circular logic in the scientific approach – they shut their eyes and then say that God doesn’t exist because they can’t see him.
Secondly, science has to be repeatable. But God is not one of the laws of phyics of the universe to be tested in that way. He is an individual, who does what he wants when he wants to. He is not a machine where you push the button and the mechanism works to deliver the product. His individuality and his scorn for human ‘wisdom’ mean that he will never subject himself as a divine lab-rat. So you try to scientifically measure the effect of prayer, and he won’t play along. But on the other hand, a friend of mine whose daughter was in the Alder Hey children’s hospital in Liverpool, England, told me that staff there say that the children of families that pray do have a better chance of survival.
The fact is, some people do experience genuine healing at these events. My colleague showed me before and after MRI scans and accompanying doctor's letters - the earlier dated one said he had asbestosis and on that basis he had successfully sued his former employer and was waiting for the cheque. The later dated one stated he had no asbestosis, and on the basis of this he had waived the compensation payment. Between the two scans he had been to a Christian faith healing meeting [not one of Todd Bentley's] and been healed suddenly, miraculously and permanently in the aisle before he even reached the front. It's anecdotal, but its still 100% true.
And my own wife has experienced a partial healing of her rheumatoid arthritis when she was ‘slain in the spirit’ at our church, and now that she is due for a flare up after the birth of our baby, and her hands were starting to get stiff, she asked for prayer again last Sunday and on Monday the pain had reduced – in her words from 7/10 to 5/10.
In Scripture, physical healing and forgiveness are often mentioned side by side, as a couplet or as phrases within the sentence. So, if you don’t believe that God heals today, why do you still believe that he forgives you today?
I always thought that Wikipedia articles were supposed to be neutral, and yet the article is clearly written by an opponent and shows quite terrible bias. Yes they have checked out negative the stuff they quote to make sure it is true etc, but there is no balancing positive information.They also throw doubt on his claims of faith healing, putting the phrase in inverted commas to indicate their scepticism. In the discussion they justify this by saying that until there is scientific proof of faith healing, they can’t write it as factual, and therefore have to put the inverted commas, and refer to the Wikipedia article on faith healing.
The trouble is, science is the wrong tool to measure faith healing.
For one thing, it’s impossible to get evidence from a doctor because no matter how miraculous it is they will never say ‘God did it’ or ‘it’s a miracle’ – only that ‘the patient went through a spontaneous recovery’. There is therefore a circular logic in the scientific approach – they shut their eyes and then say that God doesn’t exist because they can’t see him.
Secondly, science has to be repeatable. But God is not one of the laws of phyics of the universe to be tested in that way. He is an individual, who does what he wants when he wants to. He is not a machine where you push the button and the mechanism works to deliver the product. His individuality and his scorn for human ‘wisdom’ mean that he will never subject himself as a divine lab-rat. So you try to scientifically measure the effect of prayer, and he won’t play along. But on the other hand, a friend of mine whose daughter was in the Alder Hey children’s hospital in Liverpool, England, told me that staff there say that the children of families that pray do have a better chance of survival.
The fact is, some people do experience genuine healing at these events. My colleague showed me before and after MRI scans and accompanying doctor's letters - the earlier dated one said he had asbestosis and on that basis he had successfully sued his former employer and was waiting for the cheque. The later dated one stated he had no asbestosis, and on the basis of this he had waived the compensation payment. Between the two scans he had been to a Christian faith healing meeting [not one of Todd Bentley's] and been healed suddenly, miraculously and permanently in the aisle before he even reached the front. It's anecdotal, but its still 100% true.
And my own wife has experienced a partial healing of her rheumatoid arthritis when she was ‘slain in the spirit’ at our church, and now that she is due for a flare up after the birth of our baby, and her hands were starting to get stiff, she asked for prayer again last Sunday and on Monday the pain had reduced – in her words from 7/10 to 5/10.
In Scripture, physical healing and forgiveness are often mentioned side by side, as a couplet or as phrases within the sentence. So, if you don’t believe that God heals today, why do you still believe that he forgives you today?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
