In honor of her, we’re going with music she likes for the links accompaniment. You may be surprised… Door 1 2 3.

One of those songs just happens to be the one we chose for our first dance. Another song is by Grits. Yes this science and religion blogger just linked to Grits. I like to think John Polkinghorne would too.

News I see fit to print (er, link) to:

• Faking ADHD gets you into Harvard. Oh dear… (via @scotmcknight).
• Apple’s insane earnings last quarter: $13 Billion. I say that’s crazy “monopoly” money.
• Interesting study on how you can get more clicks on Twitter (via @mdichristina).
• 5 Things You Should Know Before the Facebook Timeline Switch Happens. So ready to delete. So ready to delete.
• Heh. Sustainable is unsustainable.

Religion:

• Richard Beck of Experimental Theology with a well thought out review of The Bible Made Impossible. He likes many things about the book but has one major issue, which I’m sharing here. Make sure to read the entire review though so you don’t take this out of context! I’m sharing it because overwhelmingly, the reviews of the book have been positive and this can gloss over any weaknesses that may be present… “In short, I find The Bible Made Impossible to be psychologically naive. That sounds harsh, so let me clarify. I’m not speaking to Smith’s scholarship, which is awesome (plus, he’s a great writer). I’m speaking to the anthropological and psychological assumptions that need to be in place to pull his vision off. And to clarify some more, I can guarantee you that Smith is aware of these challenges. He’s a sociologist after all. The problem I’m pointing out is that these challenges, where I think the rubber meets the road, aren’t discussed in any great detail in the book. That’s my point. You read the book and say, “Great idea, but golly, the majority of people aren’t going to be able to pull this off. Not without something else being said or done.”"
• An atheist temple? For real? I guess they’ll save money on hymnbooks (via @bwithrow).
• This is such a good and real idea. Pastoring the Cross or the Epic Fail Pastor’s Conference. With this post, you can see that others agree.
• What a story about sin, repentance, and Mars Hill Church. The story (via @JesusNeedsNewPR).  And a startling interpretation (via @drantbradley). Links do not mean I agree on this one…

Science:

• Human nature and the neurobiology of conflict. “Given these and other findings, wrote Dodd’s team, “those on the political right and those on the political left may simply experience the world differently.”" Correlation and causation, once again, but…
• Certain brain cells become toxic in Lou Gehrig’s Disease. And I ask what are the astrocytes secreting?
• The always excellent Ed Yong of Not Exactly Rocket Science with Bonobos: the self-domesticated ape?
• Marcelo Gleiser asks on the NPR blog 13.7 Cosmos And Culture: Why should you care about science?
• Digital textbooks go straight from scientists to students. Make this happen, please. I’m in if you need help.
• The open-access science discussion is getting louder and louder every day. Here, 1116+ scientists pledged to not publish in, review and/or do editorial work for Elsevier journals (via @noahWG).
• ‘Mad Cow’ and other prion diseases hide out in spleen. They don’t cause damage there but there is potential risk of disease transmission to a healthy host. This is a very important study.
• A weak alcohol solution doubles the lifespan in worms? I’m sure it won’t be hard to find volunteers for those clinical trials…

The space-between:

• Massimo Pigliucci responds to his readers’ comments on his recent free will post and I am reminded of how good a writer and thinker he is. I wouldn’t want to debate him. And, thankfully, on this topic, we’re in agreement. Unfortunately, I would imagine, not on all others.
• What do you think of when you think of the word spirituality?
• The story of creation through the eyes of God (i.e. Mr. g)? Interesting… From the author in a Q & A: “I do not think that questions of ethics, morality, and beauty can be logically dissected in the same way as the conservation of energy or the second law of thermodynamics. Logic and rationality might contribute a bit to these questions but cannot answer them. For one thing, in science all questions have definite answers, whereas in the arts and humanities many interesting and important questions to do not have definite answers. For example, there is no single answer to the question:  “What is love?” or  “Is it ethical to kill another human being in war?” or “Why is Beethoven’s Second Symphony beautiful and powerful?” We need both questions with answers and questions without answers. Both kinds of questions are part of being human.”
• The “ethics” of brain boosting. You know, when it’s shown to be safe and all, I think I would do it. But that’s not my final answer. Of course, once there’s a new technology or therapy we have an even greater separation of the haves from the have-nots. And we already have enough of that. Just thinking of it here reminds me that this world is a difficult one to navigate sometimes…
• I really enjoyed this post on Undeception about religious experience and neuroscience.
• Pete Enns got a little fiery with this one at the Huffington Post: Once More, With Feeling: Adam, Evolution and Evangelicals. Jerry Coyne responds in his usual way… demanding more than one post can offer, lumping everyone into the same Evangelical basket, assuring us that theology can never change and mature, assuming motives when they’re not there, etc. But I’m used to that.
• RJS posted on Polkinghorne on the Jesus Creed: Why Would a Scientist Believe the Virgin Birth?
• I’m usually not a fan of the a-word, but Scot McKnight briefly summarizes a book on it by Alister McGrath that might be a good one.

See you next week!

If that can’t do it, here’s a montage. Good luck resisting their charms!

So, it looks like a good book.

For a summary, one need look no further than the preface where Murphy describes her motivations for writing the book.

The philosopher of science must answer the question “In what does the rationality of science consist?” Few besides my teacher Feyerabend would question that science is rational. The philosophy of religion, on the other hand, must in these days provide an apologia for the very possibility of religious knowledge. 

Philosophy of science has made great strides in this generation by careful study of science itself – as opposed to arm-chair investigation of the ‘logic’ of science. It seemed to me, therefore, that philosophers of religion needed an equally thorough knowledge of the cognitive aspects of religion…

… I saw that Scripture, history, and the church’s ongoing encounters with God in community life and worship could be the data for a scientific theology. Theology itself (doctrine) could be accounted theories in a theological “research program.” The analysis of the relations between data and theory, and criteria for acceptance of theories, would come from the philosophy of science of the late Imre Lakatos. (p xi-xii)

Let me make it clear from the beginning that I do not believe that for theology to be intellectually acceptable or a worthwhile endeavor that it need to be scientific. Too often, disciplines outside of traditional science want to label their fields as scientific or use scientific terminology or methodology to make their disciplines seem more relevant in today’s scientific climate. I don’t think this is necessary because I believe all disciplines have their own intrinsic value, but then again I teach at a Christian liberal arts college so that is to be expected. However, since I am a scientist and thus think and structure my ideas in the ways of science, Murphy’s approach is very inviting to me, personally.

Should her approach be inviting to more than just me? Should she have a broader audience? I think so, but you tell me. Do you agree with the following paragraph? Do you think what she’s stating is a valid and current problem for theology?

So, to sum up, the theologian’s options, as Stout sees them, are: (1) ignore Hume, with the consequence that theology becomes irrelevant to the segment of the culture that has been affected by Enlightenment thought; or (2) take Hume’s work for granted and either: (a) find some other vindication for theology (moral, aesthetic, existential), with the consequence that theology loses its cognitive content and becomes uninteresting; or (b) redefine terms so that theology has its own peculiar form of ‘rationality’, with the consequence that theology becomes unintelligible to those who operate with the same standard epistemology. (p 14)

]]> http://scienceandtheology.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/theology-in-the-age-of-scientific-reasoning/feed/ 6 justintopp Theology in Age of Sci Reason book http://scienceandtheology.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/dan-dennett-on-our-consciousness-ted-talk-of-the-week/ http://scienceandtheology.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/dan-dennett-on-our-consciousness-ted-talk-of-the-week/#comments Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:00:42 +0000 justintopp http://scienceandtheology.wordpress.com/?p=1867 Continue reading →]]> Last week, I linked to Antonio Damasio’s TED talk in which he spoke about his theory for how “self comes to mind” to generate consciousness. This week, we get a different picture of consciousness, from Dan Dennett. Dennett has two main points to make in his talk. First, even though you think you’re an expert on your own consciousness, you’re really not. Second, a good amount of the time your consciousness is not only inaccurate, but it is fooling… “you.”

Dennett’s evidence for his argument comes from visual tricks or illusions that show that what you think you’re looking at is not really there. Your brain fills in gaps and plays tricks on you to help make sense out of the limited view you have of reality (in this case, artistic images).

The evidence is quite clear. My favorite example is shown below in two images, the first a view of a painting from afar and the second a closer up view of the same painting. Your brain makes you think that there are people on the bridge from afar, but when you look more closely, it’s just blobs of paint. You “create” people that aren’t really there. We don’t just do this with visual inputs, but also with audio inputs, as anyone who has camped out can attest to! We think there is someone out there when it’s just the wind (or if you’re in Texas, an armadillo).

However, I don’t agree that the inaccuracies presented in the talk can then be extrapolated to say that all of our consciousness is mistaken. It’s one thing to show that processing of relatively complex inputs can be faulty from time to time, it’s another entirely to say that our  understanding of consciousness is mistaken or that consciousness is an illusion (which he does not say within this particular talk, but is a logical conclusion). Nevertheless, a very interesting talk and one that should generate a healthy discussion!

]]> http://scienceandtheology.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/dan-dennett-on-our-consciousness-ted-talk-of-the-week/feed/ 0 justintopp Screen shot 2012-01-19 at 11.39.35 PM Screen shot 2012-01-19 at 11.40.02 PM http://scienceandtheology.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/yes-so-weekly-links-roundup-jan-23/ http://scienceandtheology.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/yes-so-weekly-links-roundup-jan-23/#comments Tue, 24 Jan 2012 02:46:59 +0000 justintopp http://scienceandtheology.wordpress.com/?p=1879 Continue reading →]]> Links for the week. Audio from Evanescence, Pink Floyd, and … John Denver? 

The news I see fit to print (er, link) to:

• Everything you wanted to know about coffee in 3 minutes. Wow, didn’t know it was responsible for the Enlightenment!
• This is how Apple changes education forever. Or maybe not. At least, not yet. Anything that drops textbook price down, makes them weigh less, and makes them more interactive is a big hit for me.
• Speaking of Apple, iPad and iPhone apps of note. Medical. Frugal foodies. And this. Heh.When Siri attacks. But seriously, assimilation has begun.
• This made me laugh. So, did this, although it probably shouldn’t have. This didn’t, which is unusual for xkcd, but humor wasn’t it’s purpose. Seems like Wikipedia et al. were taken seriously.
• Mountains beyond mountains. Gorgeous book art.
• I’ve had a massive earache/sinus infection this weekend and brought old Mr. Reliable… the hydrogen peroxide. Tilt, pout, bubble, pour out. Good stuff. Turns out there is a lot more uses for it too. That reminds me of this chemistry cartoon. Not for faint of heart…

Religion:

• Mountaintop. Beautiful.
• On that ugly word, biblical. Rachel Held Evans talks about Christian Smith’s very well-received book, The Bible Made Impossible.
• Thinking Christian began a series called Ten Crucial Turning Points. The 1st and 2nd posts on Creation were great.
• Scot McKnight says, “David Neff nails it!” And I agree.

Science:

The space-between:

• What is your favorite deep, elegant, or beautiful explanation? A few examples and the real deal. One I particularly like: “Where did we come from? I find the explanation that we were made in stars [that we are all stardust] to be deep, elegant, and beautiful. This explanation says that every atom in each of our bodies was built up out of smaller particles produced in the furnaces of long-gone stars. We are the byproducts of nuclear fusion. The intense pressures and temperatures of these giant stoves thickened collapsing clouds of tiny elemental bits into heavier bits, which once fused, were blown out into space as the furnace died. The heaviest atoms in our bones may have required more than one cycle in the star furnaces to fatten up. Uncountable numbers of built-up atoms congealed into a planet, and a strange disequilibrium called life swept up a subset of those atoms into our mortal shells. We are all collected stardust. And by a most elegant and remarkable transformation, our starstuff is capable of looking into the night sky to perceive other stars shining. They seem remote and distant, but we are really very close to them no matter how many lightyears away. All that we see of each other was born in a star. How beautiful is that?”
• On the other side of the spectrum… the ways the world could end. Yikes. But it will end. We do know that.
• Is Jerry Coyne unsophisticated about free will? Not as he defines it. Or so he says.
• James McGrath with a primer on Pete Enns’ new book, The Evolution of Adam. The blog tour starts next week and he, I, and several others will be writing about the book. I plan to do so in several short installments. RJS has already started going through the book on the Jesus Creed blog.
• Speaking of Pete, here’s a great adapted excerpt from this book: Evangelicalism and Evolution ARE in Serious Conflict (and that’s not the end of the world).
• “Preaching against evolution in evangelical churches doesn’t create atheists — it creates not-evangelicals.”
• Are We the Reason for the Universe’s Existence? The Anthropic Principle Reconsidered. Not an endorsement, but food for though nevertheless. While you’re reading, try to catch the one really interesting, but “out there” link.
• Oh fine, here it is.
• Did you all see this sledding crow video? Much food for thought here.
• On Epiphenomenon, people say they’re good if they think God is watching.
• Wonderful, wonderful article by Andy Crouch on What I Wish My Pastor Knew About… The Life of a Scientist. ”In many scientists, delight is matched by wonder — a sense of astonishment at the beautiful, ingenious complexity to be found in the world. This is not the “wonder” that comes from ignorance — “I wonder how a light bulb really works?” — but a wonder that comes from understanding. Indeed, as we progress further into humanity’s scientific era we have been able to disabuse ourselves of a mistaken early-modern notion: that the more the world became comprehensible, the less it would be wonderful. That turns out not to be true at all — ask a scientist. Wonder grows as understanding grows. Indeed, wonder only grows if understanding grows. If we replace our childhood awe of lightning with an explanation like, “It’s nothing but a transfer of voltage across a highly resistive material” (an example of what G. K. Chesterton wittily called “nothing-buttery”) perhaps the world will seem like a less wonderful place. But those who actually pursue knowledge of lightning — of electromagnetism or cloud formation or weather systems or climate — end up being more in awe of the world than they were as children. This is surely one of the remarkable features of our cosmos: the more we understand about it, the more we are in awe of its beautiful elegance and simplicity, and at the same time its humbling complexity.”

Although it’s a bit dry, I really, really enjoyed this talk and am looking forward to reading the book when my mind catches up to my self!  One issue I struggle with when considering monism vs dualism and my current position of non-reductive physicalism (or emergence) is how the self can be maintained when the material within our bodies is constantly turned over and made new. Damasio poses in this talk that it’s the connections between the body, brainstem, and cerebral cortex that constitues self and that his model explains why some self-like behavior is observed in animals.

Great and informative talk. Enjoy!

~John Polkinghorne