Bad Therapy by Abigail Shrier

I was at Chandler's house when I saw this book on her shelf. I love Abigail Shrier and so I asked if I could borrow it. Turns out I bought it for her in the first place! I cannot say enough for Bad Therapy by Abigail Shrier. Anyone who knows a child, has a child, or was a child needs to read this book. Although I really liked her conclusions, the sheer scope and scale of the problem depresses me. It's a behemoth. 

She starts with therapy itself. Shrier quite persuasively makes the case that therapy, the way it is done today, is actually iatrogenic, that is it harms more than helps. In this section she outlines exactly what "Bad Therapy" is:

"What does bad therapy look like, I wondered. If a sadist wanted to induce anxiety, depression, a feeling of incapacity, or family estrangement, what sort of methods would she employ? How would a malevolent mastermind induct a generation into a tyranny of feelings? Like this.

1. Teach Kids to Pay Close Attention to their Feelings...

2. Induce Rumination...

3. Make 'Happiness a Goal but Reward Emotional Suffering...'

4. Affirm and Accommodate Kids' Worries...

5. Monitor, Monitor, Monitor...

6. Dispense Diagnoses Liberally...

7. Drug 'Em...

8. Encourage Kids to Share Their 'Trauma'...

9. Encourage Young Adults to Break Contact with 'Toxic' Family...

10. Create Treatment Dependency..." (p. 42-63). 

We have created hypochondriacs who experience the same pain as everyone else, except they fixate on every sign or symptom. They make themselves sicker by worrying about getting sick.

In the next section, "Therapy Goes Airborne," she discusses the ways in which Bad Therapy has migrated into the schools. This is the most depressing part because there are literally millions of teachers, almost none of whom are trained therapists. If they were, they would have to follow the ethical guidelines and best practices of therapy. Even though therapy has a lot of problems, they can fix them as a licensed group and hold their members accountable. But they hold no sway over teachers. And teachers are an ornery bunch, much like herding cats. Many simply are not that smart and whatever sounds good is taken as gospel truth. Even the smart ones are not reading the latest studies and diving deep into the latest conversations on the best way to help children struggling with mental health. It's like giving teachers access to the latest in chemotherapy treatments and so, "just in case," they administer a small dose to each student every day. Here's where the iatrogenesis leaps into the general population. 

In the classroom, it starts with "Social-Emotional Learning." This is the latest fad and every teacher from kindergarten on up is asked to evaluate their students social and emotional "temperature." This can be emotional check-ins where students are asked daily how they are doing. Often, one student's sadness can infect the entire class and an emotive, therapeutic trauma session ensues. Much crying and flagellation are signs of a good check-in despite the complete lack of academic purpose or even therapeutic progress. These amateur group therapy sessions teach students that they are emotionally fragile and probably broken. Students are then coddled and those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds lose out the most. Rather than being held to high standards and given the tools needed to better their situation, the students are excused, accommodated, and unmotivated to succeed. Schools are on the hunt for trauma and it's surprisingly easy to find. Figuring different traumas stack up and believing "the body keeps the score" (a debunked, but highly popular theory), the children are poked and prodded until the slightest trauma can be unearthed and "dealt with" whether or not parents agree to any of this. In fact, since most of the trauma is apparently a result of parental action, it's best to keep parents out altogether. Therefore the students are endlessly surveyed and inculcated with the idea that something is wrong with them. Their teacher and school counselor just need to figure out what. 

Not only is all this poking and prodding hurting the students and introducing trauma where none existed, it has led to a type of toxic empathy. Anyone, anywhere can claim to feel "unsafe" and she is automatically the victim. Regardless of the motives or even the actions of the "perpetrator," all empathy channels toward the aggrieved. This has led, apparently with no recognition of the irony, to the most bullying of environments. Shrier calls this "The Tattletale Generation." Victims are virtuous and the perpetrators beyond the pale and without redemption. This simultaneously reinforces the victim narrative and introduces new "trauma" to the "perpetrator."

In exasperation, Shrier asks, "Who raised these children?" She answers her own question with "Gentle Parents." This is the other side of the coin where the teachers playing therapist are one side and the parents playing therapist are the other. Rather than a simple (and time-tested) "Knock it off," children are indulged and analyzed and their feelings held up for endless examination. This has produced a generation of tiny tyrants who scare their parents. In our desire to avoid becoming authoritarian parents, we have neglected to be authoritative parents. But something has to keep these tiny tyrants under control. So we turn to drugs. Shrier has a lot to say on the drugging of our children that has replaced old-fashioned discipline. TL;DR: She's against it.

Finally, in the last section, Shrier proclaims, "Maybe There's Nothing Wrong with Our Kids." She advocates that parents disregard the "experts" and allow their children to be children. When they mess up, discipline them. Provide them with love and independence. Don't coddle them but encourage resilience. Invite extended family to speak into their lives. Don't treat your child as the center of the universe, to the detriment of all others. 

She ends with, "Remove the [harmful interventions]: the technology, the hovering, the monitoring, the constant doubt. The diagnosing of ordinary behaviors as pathological. The psychiatric medications you aren't convinced your child needs. The expert evaluations. Banish from their lives everyone with the tendency to treat our children as disordered. You don't need them." (p. 250)

I think she's right.

Beauty for Truth's Sake by Stratford Caldecott

A fellow teacher recommended Beauty for Truth's Sake by Stratford Caldecott, stating that it had a great impact upon her. Since I greatly respect her, I figured her recommendation was as good a reason as any to buy it and read it. 

I had to read it twice. 

It's very dense. Even the title, Beauty for Truth's Sake, is enigmatic. What does that even mean? Even after reading the book twice, I'm still not sure that I can explain it. 

Caldecott is making the case for re-enchanting education. He believes we went wrong when we separated Faith and Reason. 

He begins with a discussion of the trivium, grammar, logic, and rhetoric, and the quadrivium, arithmetic, music, geometry, and astronomy, which together compose the seven liberal arts. As understood by the ancients, it was the study of these things that would lead a student to the ultimate good, which was the study of God. In this world, faith and reason worked together to free the student up for that most good, true, and beautiful. "The assumption of this system of education was that by learning to understand the harmonies of the cosmos, our minds would be raised toward God, in whom we could find the unity from which all these harmonies derive: Dante's 'love that moves the sun and the other stars.'" (53) But western civilization long ago lost the connection between faith and reason and so God and the study of theology became worthless pursuits. 

By losing sight of the purpose of education according to Plato, we have lost sight of our very humanity. Plato describes the power of learning on the soul: "the instrument of knowledge can only by the movement of the whole soul be turned from the world of becoming to that of being, and learn by degrees to endure the sight of being and of the brightest and best of being, or in other words, of the good." (22) Knowledge, then, is its own end. It is be valued because it leads us to beauty. And truth resides in beauty. John Newman states, "I have said that all branches of knowledge are connected together, because the subject matter of knowledge is intimately united in itself as being the acts and work of the Creator." (29) True beauty is the harmony found in the universe. To miss or denigrate beauty is to lose both truth and goodness as well. And all beauty is found in acknowledging the Creator.

Caldecott then discusses the poetic imagination and our need to awaken it. This means understanding how the medievals saw at the world. Theirs was a cosmos infused with divine symbolism. "Everything that exists, in whatever mode, having its principle in the Divine Intellect, translates or represents that principle in its own manner according to its own order of existence; and thus, from one order to another, all things are linked and correspond with each other so that they join together in a universal and total harmony which is like a reflection of the Divine Unity itself." (48) It was this elimination of the symbolic and poetic understanding that caused the great divorce between science and religion and art from science.

The author then goes onto discuss how the ancients imbued that first of the quadrivium, arithmetic and numbers, with symbolism. He starts with mathematics and shows how numbers pointed the mind of man to God. It begins with 1 - the ultimate symbol of unity that exists in God, himself. Then 2, which clearly delineates the symbiosis of the Father and the Son. But it is 3 that completes the picture of the Trinity and the love that flows between Father and Son. Caldecott spends quite a bit of time on more number symbolism, including the "golden ratio," and the ways the medieval world used number theory to point the people to the truth of God. 

From arithmetic, he moves to the next topic of the quadrivium, geometry. Specifically he shows how circles and other geometric shapes point to the unity of the Trinity. Not only do circles and triangles capture the beauty of the godhead, but proportion as well. Caldecott states, "A single relationship unites the Father to Christ, Christ to his disciples. Christ is the proportional mean between God and the saints." (81) He even relates pi, and its unending string of numbers, to the infinite love of God for his creation. If the Holy Spirit is the circle connecting the two points of Father and Son, then his measure is πd, an infinite number times the distance between Father and Son. We reside in the middle of that circle!

Next in the quadrivium is music and to this Caldecott turns. According to the ancients, the universe is singing! And "to understand the universe is to appreciate its music, the harmonies between its parts, the rhythm of if movement, and the proportion of its elements." (94) This music becomes physically manifest in architecture as well. Unfortunately, we have lost sight of the verticality seen in medieval architecture, with its intentional pointing to God. We have focused on the horizontal, that is man to man and to his environment. Even the tallest skyscrapers are simply horizontal buildings stacked upon each other. He calls for an architecture based on verticality, permanence, and iconography. Not only buildings, but the natural world is singing. "The animals, plants, and minerals, the stars and elements, were universally thought to 'praise' their maker, either simply by their very existence, or when called upon to do so by man (who gives them a voice they do not possess in themselves)." (107)

This universal singing leads naturally to astronomy, the fourth branch of the quadrivium. C.S. Lewis brilliantly reminds us that "The music which is too familiar to be heard enfolds us day and night in all ages." (110) We live in an enchanted creation and we miss it because it is all too familiar. Unfortunately early astronomers missed the mark in their insistence on an earth-centered system, and so lost some credibility. The problem was that the astronomers so believed in the mythical symbolism of creation that they worked backward from that presupposition. Rather than let the actual data guide them and then discover the beauty, they tried to impose their own vision of the beautiful, distorting what God had actually designed. In attempting to "save appearance" they created increasingly complicated descriptions of what was actually a beautiful system: the sun at the center (light) and the elliptical orbits of planets which contain two centers, just as we orbit our lives around the visible and the invisible God. Much beauty exists in the truth of the created order. The ancient astronomers lacked the faith to wait for that beauty to be revealed. 

The final subject of astronomy should lead most naturally to the study of God, but in our secular and disenchanted world, we have become buffered selves, disengaged from the world. "Without those ties, without that embeddedness, nature was drained of grace, and our connection to the transcendent God became less a matter of imagination or intellect or feeling than of sheer willpower." (124) To re-enchant the universe, we must return to revelation and worship. If we define "liturgy" as "a formal ritual enacted by those who understand themselves to be participating in an action with the divine..." (Wikipedia), then liturgy may be our salvation.

Can we see liturgy itself, then, as the "lost key" to humane education that we have been searching for in this book; that is, to the reintegration of all things, all subjects, in a vision of sacred order? Would a renewed appreciation of liturgy help to anchor theories about number and symbolism and quality more profoundly in real life, enabling us to introduce some much needed harmony into our own souls too? (126)

Caldecott reminds us that all societies are religious societies and all contain a creation story, a doctrine of the end times, and a liturgy or set of rituals to organize time and space. Ours has moved away from true religion to a secular and God-denying counterfeit religion. We must therefore start with remembering. We were created by God and that knowledge should evoke in us gratitude. That gratitude should turn into worship. This, then, should engender an appreciation of the seven liberal arts as a way to give ontological depth to our universe and point to a harmony that harmonizes our souls with the soul of the Creator. Modernity rejects this vertical dimension and so leads to a fragmented and dissipated self. It is the very definition of hell. The man whose soul seeks to harmonize itself with its creator flies on wings of both reason and faith, all bound up in love. Reason will lead to faith as beauty is revealed and faith will naturally engage in reason to reveal more beauty. It is, as Dante tells us, love that moves it all. 

Mathematics for Human Flourishing by Francis Su

 

The school where I teach asked the teachers to read Mathematics for Human Flourishing by Francis Su over the summer and come prepared to discuss it at the beginning of the school year. Contrary to popular belief, the summer can be a   very busy time for teachers. We have much to do to prepare for the upcoming year and this summer was certainly no exception. 

I was finally able to sneak it in at the end of summer (while floating in my pool of course). I'm glad I did. It's a wonderful and inspiring read. At one time in my life (high school) I enjoyed math and was pretty good at it. College cured me of that. However, this book helped rekindle the joy I used to feel playing with numbers and unlocking their secrets. 

Su begins the book with a correspondence from a prison inmate, Christopher Jackson, who has discovered a love of mathematics. He reached out to Su to gain insight and share in their mutual love of mathematics. The conceit works as Su repeatedly returns to the letters and we are updated with the prisoner's progress, both legally and mathematically. 

Su also intersperses small math puzzles. This call for a pause now and again to really get down to the business of thinking and pondering patterns. Between the letters, the puzzles, and Su's conversational tone, the book is actually light and easy, and wonderfully refreshing despite it's intimidating subject matter. It reminds me a bit of Auguste Gusteau, the renowned and extremely talented chef from the movie Ratatouille, who wrote the bestseller "Anyone Can Cook". Su believes anyone can love mathematics. 

The beauty of Su's book begins in the table of contents. Each chapter is dedicated to a virtue embodied in the study of mathematics: "flourishing," "exploration," "meaning," "play," "beauty," "permanence," "truth," "struggle," "power," "justice," "freedom," "community," and, of course, "love."

In "flourishing," Su begins with the proposition that, "Every being cries out silently to be read differently." (p.2) By this he means that humans want to be understood and "read." Seen. Appreciated. Su makes the radical claim the mathematics leads to the flourishing necessary for humans to be truly understood. "Human flourishing refers to a wholeness—of being and doing, of realizing one's potential and helping others do the same, of acting with honor and treating others with dignity, of living with integrity even in challenging circumstances...The well-lived life is a life of human flourishing." (p. 10) Su believes that math can build aspects of our character and habits of mind that allow us to live lives as fully-formed humans, truly enjoying what life has to offer.

Chapter 2, "exploration," describes "mathematical exploration [as] very much like space exploration, but of a different kind of space—a space of ideas." (p. 22) Like exploring the physical world, mathematicians don't know where they will end up when they start out. They test theories, become "captivated by mystery,  motivated by questions, undeterred by setbacks." (p. 23) Exploration further cultivates imagination and the "expectation of enchantment." (p. 29) Su reminds us that anyone "born with the human capacities to inquire and to reason" can be an explorer. (p. 31) He urges the reader to dream, knowing "imaginative, creative, and unexpected enchantments await." (p. 31)

Next Su describes the way in which mathematics inculcates "meaning." Just as words develop over time and gain an inherent richness, number, which are very abstract, can grow richer with use. Searching for meaning in any context builds other virtues: story-telling, thinking abstractly, persistence, and contemplation. Su summarizes the main idea of the chapter with, "Mathematics is the science of patterns and the art of engaging the meaning of those patterns." (p. 44)

In chapter 4, "play," Su does the seeming impossible and seeks to describe math as a playground. His lighthearted and optimistic tone to this part makes a chapter called, "play" seem almost credulous. Su describes "play" as fun, voluntary, meaningful, structured freedom, exploration, and imagination. For Su, mathematics, done properly, can embody all these characteristics. "Play" in math begins with pattern exploration and used inductive reasoning in reaching conclusions. But math requires the student to then move into deductive reasoning, which can include proof by contradiction or proof by induction. Which should, ideally, lead to more questions to explore. Math play can lead to virtues like hopefulness, curiosity, and concentration, as well as confidence. 

Su moves on to describe the "beauty" found in math. Mathematical beauty manifests itself in four ways. The first is sensory beauty. This is the kind of beautiful patterns that can been experienced with the senses like ripples in the sand or fractal patterns in nature. The second kind is wondrous beauty. This is the awe felt at the idea expressed within mathematics, like E = mc2. Even the idea of mathematical constants, like the speed of light, can inspire this kind of wondrous awe. Next is insightful beauty. This involves communication and refers to simple, insightful proofs that are simply beautiful to hear and read. Finally, there is transcendent beauty. "Transcendent beauty arises when one moves from the beauty of a specific object, idea, or reasoning to a greater truth of some kind—perhaps an insight that reveals its deep significance, or a deep connection to there known ideas." (p. 79) This kind of beauty sees math as speaking directly into what it means to be human.

Math also teaches "permanence." Humans naturally seek the permanent things, and math, by its very nature involves permanence. Whether it is in constants, or invariants, math continuously reminds us that some things never change. Math gives humans fixed points. Humans "seek permanence because it is a refuge, a yardstick, and a foothold. But that does not fully capture why this is such a deeply embedded human longing." (p. 97) Su believes all of this is actually a desire to answer the question, "Who can I trust?" "Trust is at the heart of a desire for permanence." (p. 97)

One of the deepest desires humans have is for "truth." In fact, only oppressive societies seek to suppress the truth. It is necessary for human flourishing. Su defines truth as a statement that aligns with reality. He sidesteps all the philosophical questions about "reality" and sticks to a common sense definition. Math completely fails if its answers are not true. In fact, the common refrain, "Check your work." is a bane too many a student. But if we are taught to appreciate the beauty of truth and therefore the beauty of deeply questioning mathematical solutions to discover if they do, in fact, comport with reality, we can learn to appreciate the truth embodied in mathematics. As mathematicians engage in "the quest for deep knowledge and deep investigation," other virtues are built, among them the thirst for knowledge and circumspection, and intellectual humility. 

Anyone who has ever studied math knows it also invariably involves "struggle." However, struggles are a necessary component of what it means to be human. We struggle through suffering, to achieve, and to grow. And if humans are to flourish, we must grow, therefore we must struggle. Su makes the point that while many may be tempted to cheat and bypass the struggle, working through a difficult problem can have fantastic ramifications for human flourishing. 

Math gives students a sense of power as they learn "unlock and expand" the innate capacity for reason (p. 129). We gain power over things, power to direct or influence, power to make stuff, and power to make sense. While power can be used for ill, math opens up the possibilities of "creative power" which can amplify the power to do good. We can amplify others' ability to make more stuff and make more sense. Creative power leads to  a "humble, sacrificial, encouraging character with a heart of service and a resolve to unleash creativity in others." (p. 143) All from diving deeply into mathematics.

Justice is better served with a study of mathematics. Su describes two kinds of justice: primary justice and rectifying justice. The first seeks to make right relationships. The second is needed when the first fails. "Rectifying justice is spotting something wrong and trying to make it right." (p. 150) This is right up the alley of a mathematician. Unfortunately Su describes myriad ways that the study of math has been unjust. Often people are thought incapable of succeeding because they do not meet a predetermined stereotype of someone who is "good at math." The field is ripe for rectifying justice.

One of humanity's core values is freedom. According to Su, math provides five essential freedoms: the freedom of knowledge, the freedom to explore, the freedom of understanding, the freedom to imagine, and the freedom of welcome. (p. 167) The freedom of knowledge is best illustrated when a student realizes multiple ways of attacking a problem. Previously he knew only one way and didn't know what he didn't know. Math gave him freedom of knowledge. Freedom to explore occurs when a student realizes that he can play with numbers. That numbers can be relational and tell stories. Freedom of understanding means your mind is freed up for higher level thinking. Once you understand the basics, you can move on to weightier topics. Freedom of imagination is offered when students are exposed to wonderful and beautiful possibilities like fractals. Finally freedom of welcome is on offer when a students sees himself as part of a group of similar explorers. He can speak the language and enter the conversation. 

Another value supported by mathematics is community. For those that love math, that find joy in all things relating to math, the study and serious pursuit of mathematics forms a community of like-minded people. Contrary to the stereotype of the lone math geek, math is highly collaborative. However, by its very nature, even math communities can be harsh and competitive environments. Su envisions a hospitable math community, welcoming all comers, rejecting stereotypes and a narrow focus on achievement. He sees it as being made up of people like himself, who love math and just want to share that joy with other.

Finally, math can be a vehicle for the highest value of all, love. While mathematics can be a beautiful thing, it is not the ultimate thing. Su found himself struggling when he encountered a setback studying for his doctorate. Discouraged, he couldn't even muster up a desire to continue to pursue math. But in the meantime, he was tutoring undergraduates in math. This brought him back to the core, to the most important value, love. Not love of mathematics, or the use of mathematics to study love, but love for his fellow humans being expressed through and because of mathematics. "To love is to give the gift of play and exploration, to grow in a desire for truth and beauty, to bestow creative power on another human being by showing them mathematics. To love someone is to set them free, not just in their heart, soul, and strength, but also in their minds." (p. 206)

I would highly recommend this book. It was an easy and enjoyable read. The puzzles at the end and the stories of his correspondence with Christopher alone almost make it worth it. Francis Su is a wonderful story teller and he invites us to love what he loves for the sake of loving people. That is beautiful.

How We Go to Now by Steven Johnson

I don't remember who recommended How We Go to Now: Six Innovations That Made the Modern World by Steven Johnson. I think it might have been my dad. No matter, I found the book very interesting.

Johnson lays out the Six Innovations That Made the Modern World one-by-one, creating quite a compelling narrative. As to his reason for writing the unorthodox history book, he states,

"This is a history worth telling, in part, because it allows us to see a world we generally take for granted with fresh eyes. Most of us in the developed world don't pause to think how amazing it is that we drink water from a tap and never once worry about dying forty-eight hours later from cholera. Thanks to air-conditioning, many of us live comfortably in climates that would have been intolerable just fifty years ago. Our lives are surrounded and supported by a whole class of objects that are enchanted with the ideas and creativity of thousands of people who came before us: inventors and hobbyists and reformers who steadily hacked away at the problem of making artificial light or clean drinking water so that we can enjoy those luxuries today without a second thought, without even thinking of them as luxuries in the first place...we are indebted to those people every bit as much as, if not more than, we are to the kings and conquerors and magnates of traditional history. 

But the other reason to write this kind of history is that these innovations have set in motion a much wider array of changes in society than you might reasonably expect. Innovations usually begin life with an attempt to solve a specific problem, but once they get into circulation, they end up triggering other changes that would have been extremely difficult to predict." (p. 2)

Glass: Johnson imagines a time in the distant past in which sand was superheated, perhaps by a comet, melted, and then cooled into a previously unknown substance that has fascinated mankind ever since: glass. This fascinating material was initially used, as so many new products are, by the extremely wealthy. It was the stuff of kings. But as typically happens, merchants found ways to make it cheaper and more easily accessible to the masses. We got bottles, drinking glasses, and jewelry. Eventually spectacles would change the world right about the time they were needed: the days of Johannes Gutenberg. These lenses gave way to microscopes, telescopes, and cameras. The possibilities were endless. Mirrors changed how we see ourselves by allowing us to see ourselves as others see us. New societal norms became necessary. Today glass powers the world of Silicon Valley. Computers, the World Wide Web, iPhones, and every technology we hold near and dear are dependent on glass. This simple, decorative tchotchke of the wealthy changed the world.

Cold: Today we take such simplicities as ice and cool air for granted, but for most of human history, these luxuries were unavailable, even to the extremely wealthy. As late as the early 1800, inventors and investors struggled to store and ship what nature provided bountifully in the winter: ice. While the wealthy would carve out a large chunk of lake ice and store it underground in a cellar, it would hardly last the spring. Entrepreneurs and innovators made and lost fortunes developing ways to harvest, store, and ship ice. Once the process was perfected an entirely new market opened up. It was now possible to ship meat across the country before it spoiled. New England ice met up with MidWest cattle. Placing ice on top of rail cars created "refrigerated cars." Yet in Florida, hurricanes made shipment of New England ice problematic and undependable. One physician who desired "refrigerated" hospital rooms in order to cool malarial patients decided to create a machine to produce ice. While his simple machine worked, he had no head for business and lost all trying to monetize it. However, "the knowledge of thermodynamics and the basic chemistry o fair, combined with the economic fortunes being made in the ice trade, made artificial cold ripe for invention." (p. 66) By the 1950 everyday families had the product in their home. Meanwhile Clarence Birdseye, living in Labrador, Canada in 1912 had the opposite problem. Everything was frozen whether he wanted it or not. Fresh food was impossible to come by. With the new field of artificial refrigeration, Birdseye developed a process of "flash-freezing" that would preserve the freshness of food. A similar process allows for the freezing of eggs, sperm, and embryos. The refrigeration process began to be applied to air as well. "Air Conditioning" as it was called allowed previously uninhabitable areas to become boomtowns. Americans were now free to live anywhere. Cold, far from being a frivolous luxury, has become indispensable to modern life.

Sound:  For most of human history, all we could do was try to amplify sound. Recording and playing back were hardly dreamt of. In fact, the first person to record sound, two decades before Edison, was so impressed by his feat, he never even considered that the parchments could be used to reconvert back to sound waves. It was the genius of Edison who combined recording and playback. But even the genius of Edison was short-sighted. He imagined that the best use of his phonograph was in the form of audio letters. A sort of early "voice mail." When Alexander Graham Bell tinkered with the technology, he too failed to grasp the significance of his "telephone." He imagined the best use was in transmitting music across distances. Both had it exactly backwards as history would reveal. Eventually thanks to a partnership with the government, these sound recordings would be converted to digital form, making them far more secure and free from interference. But just prior to this, inventors had been tinkering with the idea of sending sound through the air, without reliance on wires. Radio was born, initially to broadcast Morse Code, "wireless telegraphs," and shortly thereafter music and the human voice. This led, unexpectedly to the rise in the popularity of music previously confined to small ethnic ghettos, jazz. Moving what was exclusively Black culture into the mainstream would also lead to movements promoting civil rights for Blacks. The same technology that made radio possible meant thousands could hear the words of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. when he used a microphone to speak to the masses. Knowing that sound moved in waves also led to the invention of undersea and eventually above ground RADAR, as well as that friend to all expectant parents, ultrasound. All of these technologies that resulted from the initial understanding of how the human ear processed sound have been used for ill and good. Such is the story of all technology.

Clean:  In the not so distant past, waste removal was a major concern. Cities like Chicago, built on very flat land and without the technology to tunnel deep underground intuited that the waste collecting in the streets was contributing to the disease in the city. In Chicago, the plan involved permanently jacking up the buildings and installing waste pipes underneath. Future buildings would lay pipes before anything else. But the waste solution created another problem. The drinking water became polluted with the waste being poured into it. Germ theory and even ideas we take for granted like the benefits of basic cleanliness were unknown in much of the nineteenth century. The idea that disease could be caused by invisible organisms living in the water had to be discovered and promulgated. It seemed simply too far fetched. This is where one of the previously discussed inventions plays a role: glass lenses on microscopes. Being able to see the harmful bacteria gave researchers an idea about how to kill it. Chlorine would come to the rescue. But convincing skeptical scientists to put the acrid smelling solution in drinking water would be a tough sell. So a New Jersey doctor, when given the charge to clean up the city's water supply, secretly and without permission, added chlorine to the water. He knew small amounts of the poison would not kill a human but would destroy the bacteria. The resulting increase in public health proved him right. This, of course opened up a whole new world. Pools. Which led to revealing women's bathing suits. Which led to images of cultural beauty that affect us today. All because of chlorine. Today the challenge is to bring hygiene to places where clean water and electricity may not be readily available. Solar powered toilets to the rescue, using microchips which themselves require ultra clean rooms for manufacture and use ultra pure water in the process. Clean has certainly changed our lives tremendously.

Time: For most of human history, time was calculated by tracking the movements of the heavenly bodies. A conference in 1967 set out to create as system of tracking time and weight that was much more accurate. Mechanical clocks of the Middle Ages were notoriously unreliable, but a quick look at a sundial could help recalibrate them. However, at the time, measuring exact time did not seem necessary. But once the age of exploration began, it became more important to be able to keep an accurate record of time in order to determine how far you had traveled. Based on Galileo's observation of swinging lanterns, a pendulum clock was created that could keep time far more accurately than anything before and open up whole new worlds to explorers. Of course the reason for the exploring largely centered on trade and the movement of raw and finished materials. These were produced in factories, and factories simply could not work without accurate time measuring abilities. The two epochs went hand in glove. Of course this greatly impacted the workers who now had to show up for work "on-time" and regulate their lives, not by the movements of the sun, but by the hands of a clock. By the mid-nineteenth century everyone had a clock...in their pocket. Humans had become disciplined to function according to the relentless ticking of a watch. Yet as railroads begin to criss-cross the country, passengers and cargo moved into different local times. How in the world to standardize what had never before concerned humans, moving faster than the sun? England solved this problem by putting the entire country on one time—Greenwich Mean Time. But England is a small island and the citizens could handle variations in "noon." America, spanning a continent, needed another solution. The railroads took the lead and established the four time "zones" we have today: Eastern, Central, Mountain, and Pacific. In 1884, the entire world was divided into time zones. Timekeeping technology eventually progressed from pendulum clocks to the quartz clocks necessary for even more precision. But emerging technology required even further precision—enter the "atomic clock" based on the behavior of atoms. Time went from trying to accurately measure years, to days, to hours, to the seemingly frivolous seconds, to nanoseconds. Today orbiting atomic clocks enable Google Maps to tell you exactly where you are, because they measure time. Once again, a relatively simple concept has completely changed our world.

Light:  Once again, for most of human history, we labored without a device, now completely taken for granted—artificial light. The best most could achieve was a dim, smoky tallow candle. But in 1712, the first sperm whale was captured and to everyone's surprise, above his brain was a cavern filled with milky oil. To this day, no one knows quite the reason for the oil, but the people of that day discovered that it could be used to manufacture candles, which far surpassed the tallow candles in efficiency. But harpooning whales was difficult and dangerous. Fortunately a new source of oil was discovered under the ground. Lamps powered by fossil fuels changed our sleeping habits and led to the introduction of magazines because we could read them after the sun set and the work day ended. An interesting economic study shows that under tallow candles the average worker earned 10 minutes of light with every hour worked. Today, an hour of work can buy 300 days of light. Quite an impressive efficiency boost. But that required another leap in technology, the electric light bulb. While Edison is rightly credited with the invention, like all technologies, there are multiple chefs in the kitchen, so to speak. The modern light bulb is the result of several people and groups hard efforts at trial and error. But the electric light bulb didn't solve all the lighting problems. Archeologists working in dark pyramids in Egypt and wanting to photograph the secrets they uncovered had to come up with a way to momentarily light the dark chambers. Mixing magnesium and ordinary gunpowder created a mini-explosion and provided the burst of light the photographers needed. The flash was born. But this technology was not just good in Egypt. Jacob Riis took it into the dirty slums of New York and showed the world How the Other Half Lives.  This in turn inspired the Progressive Reforms and a new political ideology took hold. Other forms of lighting continued to be invented, notably the neon lights that created Las Vegas. Science fiction writers introduce "rays" into the consciousness and scientist were inspired to create lasers. Rather than used as killer "death-rays" this ubiquitous device scans groceries and performs surgeries. Someday, we hope lasers will lead to a limitless source of energy through nuclear fusion. From the time of "Let there be light" until today, the quest for light continues.

This fascinating book is certainly worth a read if only to make the reader grateful for so much of what we take for granted. Additionally, it's definitely worth watching the process of world-changing inventions take place. No one, in any of the above-named "Six Innovations That Made the Modern World" could have envisioned the far-reaching effects of their discoveries. We live in a different world thanks to their risk taking and hard work.

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins

After reading a bunch of books that were responding to Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, I decided that I should read the book for myself. I wanted to see if it was being represented correctly. It lived right up to my expectations as a shallow, easily defeated treatise written by an arrogant, fanatical religious believer... in Natural Selection.

He starts off clearly irritated that religion holds a special place in most cultures and seems quite perplexed as to why believers would work so hard to defend it. This already has more than a whiff of disingenuousness. My response: Really?

Then he moves into defining his terms. The God Delusions follows from The God Hypothesis which he states as, “There exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it including us.” OK with me except for the “superhuman” part. God is not just a really cool human. He is other. I think this actually trips up Dawkins again and again, because he has a hard time seeing God as anything other than human.

He goes onto note that America, in contrast to Britain, is a very religious nation. He seems unsure why that is, but suspects it is because Britain, unlike America, made Christianity a state-sponsored religion. Yep, I agree with him, and I really do think that’s it. He also goes to great pains to disabuse us of any notion that the Founders were Christians. Ugh. I know enough history to know this isn’t true. But... whatever. 

Lest anyone should say that the question of God’s existence falls outside the purview of science, Dawkins is quick to disagree. “Either he exists or he doesn’t. It is a scientific question...” Um, yeah, except the whole “Scientific Method” thing Dawkins praises so highly doesn’t work with what is outside the material world. Like his belief that God is some kind of superhuman, his belief in a god rooted in the material world is a stumbling block to his methodology.  He goes on, “If he existed and chose to reveal it, God himself could clinch the argument, noisily and unequivocally, in his favour.” Kind of like when He came to earth as a man, testified about himself for three years, died, and rose again? Kind of like that? According to Dawkins, none of that Gospel drivel counts as evidence. He easily dismisses all Scripture (except the parts he chooses to mock) as nothing more than a game of “telephone.” 

He spends some time comparing God to a teeny, tiny, almost invisible teapot orbiting the earth. He says the onus is on the one proposing the idea to prove it exists. One would never say, “Take my word for it.” Right. A teapot is a material object. It’s nothing like God or religion. It’s a weird comparison and reveals how hung up he is on God as Material Object.

Then he introduces his most unanswerable question by reviewing the arguments put forth over time for God’s existence. He correctly answers that they all, (like the Unmovable Mover, The Uncaused Cause, or the regression theory) end up making the case for an eternal God. But, he would say smugly with an arrogant assumption that the question cannot be answered, "Who made God?"

I posed this question to my believing friends. I got blank looks and an “Are you stupid?” vibe. Here’s the answer, Richard Dawkins. No one. He’s God. That’s kind of the definition. If He had a maker, that would be God. Or that thing’s maker would be God. There is none so blind as he who would not see. In fact, the more complicated the universe has been shown to be, the more finely-tuned and improbable, the more Dawkins believes his question is unanswerable. What kind of a marvelous thing or process could even create a God capable of designing such an amazing world? It’s mind-blowing. It’s like regression in reverse. That kind of a radically complex being is simply an impossibility in the eyes of Dawkins. 

He goes onto admit that although this world sure does look designed, that just goes to show how amazing the god of Richard Dawkins is: Natural Selection. The awe and reverence he gives to Natural Selection is a rare and beautiful thing. (Not Chance, which he says is of course impossible. He admits that chance is too random and astronomically improbable.) Natural Selection is omnipotent, omniscient, perfect in every way, all wise and wondrous to behold. It is ruthless, cutting out any and all that do not live up to it’s perfect standard. It is unforgiving. One maladroit DNA strand and it’s hellfire and brimstone for you. It is stunning in its beauty and simulation of design. It is able to take impossible tasks, chop them up into manageable pieces, and in the process produce nothing short of a miracle. It is so subtle and invisible, you’d almost swear the world WAS designed. But you’d be wrong. And it has one enormous benefit over the real God. Natural Selection has no moral code. One can have guilt-free sex with anyone, at anytime, anywhere. Your offspring may not be able to reproduce, but that’s the price you pay when you throw in with Natural Selection. 

He makes short work of any real scientist who may be counted as a believer in a real God. He repeatedly posits that they are either acting on the societal mores or they are loons, and he feel sorry for them. That’s pretty persuasive stuff right there!

He also dismisses any personal testimony of interactions people may have had with God. Either they were delusional, under a form of mass hypnosis, falling prey to the societal norms (like the believing scientists), the victims of illusions, or just liars. Well that takes care of that. Billions of people have had “religious experiences” that Dawkins is quite sure are not real. Next.

Again and again with the “Who made God?” This is a big one for him. In fact, since the universe regresses back into simpler and simpler functions and organisms, the first “cause” must have been the most simplest of things. It could not have been an omnipotent, omniscient, creative, and extraordinarily complex God. That makes sense. So this "God" must either be too extraordinarily complex to exist or too simple to have created anything. Heads I win, tails you lose. that's some good thinkin' right there.

Of course, he is flummoxed as to why his all-powerful god of Natural Selection would have created a being so bewitched by idolatry to another. Namely the real God. After all, his god is a ruthless utilitarian. He goes into a quite long and convoluted discourse about religion being a by-product of some other, beneficial adaptation or maybe it’s the memes we live by, or maybe it’s because children most naturally believe what they are told growing up. I’m not sure and neither, it seems, is he. Moving on. Not much to see or even ponder here. It’s obvious he’s working himself up into a fevered pitch of irrationality to avoid any semblance of doubt in his god.

After lambasting the real God as a sadistic masochist, he goes on to state why his god is actually better at creating a moral universe. “We now have four good Darwinian reasons for individuals to be altruistic, generous or ‘moral' towards each other. First, there is the special case of genetic kinship. Second, there is reciprocation... Following on from this there is, third, the Darwinian benefit of acquiring a reputation for generosity and kindness. And fourth... there is the particular additional benefit of conspicuous generosity a a way of buying unfakeably authentic advertising.” All this built-into-the-DNA morality despite most of humanity’s existence being routinely described as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” I guess those people didn’t get the memo.

In fact, he can prove through various studies that morality seems to be remarkably consistent within all people groups. Except that it isn’t. I mean it is where Western (and Judeo-Christian) values have made great inroads. But studies that look at humanity over time and everywhere have actually found a very short list of consistent moral rules. (See: Haidt - The Righteous Mind) This proves to him that morality is a result of evolution and not some ramblings handed down through a millenniums-long game of telephone. Besides, it’s downright rude to say people wouldn’t behave themselves without a god looking over their shoulder. Except they don’t. Ever see a city where the police go on strike? How’s that “natural morality” thing workin’ out?

He goes on and on for some time mocking the Bible and the standards it sets to show we, in fact, do not get our morality from the Bible. Otherwise we’d all be sacrificing our children (Abraham) or sleeping with them (Lot). He ignores context and thousands of years of scholarship on these issues, but what’s a little commentary when mocking is so much easier and fun? (In fact, he readily admits to not being familiar with what the theologians have written because he does not want to waste any of his precious time learning about something that is clearly false.) Plus isn’t is obvious that human are getting better and better. Women and blacks have the right to vote! And don’t say Hitler or Stalin. That’s not fair. Hitler was most likely a Christian. (Seriously, that’s his response.) And don’t say the prevalence of abortion. That’s not a bad thing, just a matter of perception. Besides, we are actually MORE moral for being able to see the mother’s side unlike those Neanderthals who believe abortion kills actual, innocent, defenseless babies. He goes on a bit of a rant about the inability of people to even determine what actually is human life, because all life is on a evolutionary spectrum. In the next paragraph, he states that he cannot bear to detail Saudi Arabia’s crimes against women because they are too horrible to list. Apparently HE can determine what is human life and that it is valuable (unless it’s in the womb).

He also details how religions like Islam demand absolute adherence, and no ability to question or doubt, and therefore people are willing to die and/or kill for it. If only people were taught absolute adherence to things like questioning your beliefs (Is that belief up for questioning?) and eschewing absolute obedience to God, there wouldn’t be any suicide bombers. Oh yeah, and Christianity. That’s it. That’s another of his arguments against Christianity. Islam.

His next chapter details his belief that raising children to believe in a certain religion is child abuse: a term he uses without any kind of apology. He compares it to actual physical and sexual child abuse, and determines that instilling a belief system in a child is worse. Sigh. Of course he would love to instill HIS belief system in the child instead. That’s not abuse. At the very end he recognizes that something would be lost if we were to abolish all religious teachings. Rather he states, “We can give up belief in God while not losing touch with a treasured heritage.” Hard to imagine destroying the foundation and the house still stands, but maybe in his belief system, that’s possible. Just don’t tell a child that. It’s abuse.

He finishes up with a chapter detailing why we don’t “need” God. He likens God to an imaginary friend that may have provided some sort of purpose to us as children, but that we have now outgrown. He believes that our lives are as meaningful as we choose to make them. He then goes on to show how his own life is given meaning by science. He goes through  wonderful litany of the wonders that science has exposed. I am certainly in awe of all he delineates. However, those awe-inspiring facts simply make me appreciate my God even more. He worships the creation rather than the Creator. 

I checked out this book three times. Each time, I couldn’t finish it because I would get so frustrated with his sloppy thinking and non-sequiturs. But I finally finished it! I started it because I had read several books debunking it and felt it only fair to read the real thing. However now, I don’t think all those books are necessary. Simply read this book. It debunks itself.

Why the Universe is the Way it is by Hugh Ross

I’ve enjoyed quite a few books by Hugh Ross. Therefore I thought I’d read whatever the library had by him. That’s how Why the Universe is the Way it is came into my possession.

In the introduction Ross refers to the Freeman Dyson quote that says, “… the universe in a sense must have known that we were coming.” The book goes on to explain how the universe is set up perfectly for humans. In fact, “only in the context of human existence does the universe make any rational sense.” It is because humans are the only “animal” that seeks a sense of purpose that we even ask the question, “Why are we here?” Ergo, the reason for the book. “Discovering the hidden purposes of creation can bring more than just a little contentment. Exploring why the universe is the way it is can help us develop a renewed sense of appreciation for the value of this life, an assurance of individual worth and eternal destiny, and an eager anticipation for what lies ahead.”

I just love that kind of stuff!

He proceed throughout the book answering the following questions:

Why such a vast universe?

“Given the particular laws and constants of physics that govern the universe, the possibility for life and discovery mandate the universe be vast in all ways, including volume and mass, at the particular epoch during which intelligent life exists… And though its enormity strains the human capability to imagine, that vastness says something about the high value of and high purposes for humanity’s existence. Rather than seeing ourselves as insignificant specks in the immensity of the cosmos, we can consider the immensity an indicator of our worth.”

Why such an old universe?

“Besides needing nearly 14 billion years to build up all the resources necessary to make possible the existence of rocky planets, human beings, global civilization, and technology, there’s another reason the universe must be that old. At 13.73 billion years of age, it is just old enough — and young enough — to facility its visual and technological exploration… the universe must be that old to properly study its history and structure.”

Why such a lonely universe?

“…only Earth offers a sufficiently hospitable environment for an intelligent species to survive and build a high-tech civilization. It also confirms that Earth may offer the only hospitable environment for the simplest of life-forms. Since advanced life can exist only if supported by billions of years of previously existing simpler life it seems doubly certain that the humanity of Earth is the only intelligent physical species in the observable universe.”

Why such a dark universe?

“Located where it is — with the masses, diameters, and structures as they are within the two different kinds of dark-matter halos — all this dark stuff supports the structure of spiral galaxies through time in such way as to allow for the existence of at least one life-support planet. The quantities and distributions of the different forms of cosmic dark matter also permit observers on that one life-support planet to explore and map the structure of the universe and to trace its history back to its point of origin. The amazing deals that have already emerged from that effort reveal many of the hidden purposes of the universe.”

Why a decaying universe?

“The extreme predominance of decay, or heat dissipation, makes Earth a suitable home for physical life, especially for advanced life capable of launching a high-tech civilization… Ironically, … pessimism and despair… represents the only reasonable response to reality… On the other hand, if the universe is not the sum total of reality, then life may actually hold some meaning. If the paradise, heaven or utopia many people long for does exist somewhere beyond this universe, then humanity’s hope, purpose, and destiny may be rooted in reality after all.”

Why a realm beyond this one?

“The Creator’s investment in Earth’s life is far from trivial. Life itself in all its complexity, diversity, and abundance demands an enormous outlay. That scientist still can’t assemble even the simplest life-form in the lab from scratch (from nonorganic compounds), let alone make it love, preserve its life, and sustain life for billions of years, testifies to the level of the Creator’s investment — and involvement. This observation leads to an obvious conclusion: if the Creator put so much into creating and sustaining human life, then it must have an ultimate purpose.”

Why this particular planet, star, galaxy, and universe?

“During the past several years of research, scientists have gathered a substantial body of evidence showing that the universe, the Milky Way Galaxy, the solar system, and Earth are, or at least have been, an essentially perfect vehicle for humanity. Though each astronomical component manifests features that may initially seem strange or out of place, in the context of humanity’s needs, each characteristic is just right.”

Why believe the Bible?

“What makes the Bible’s claims about the origin, structure, and history of the universe and life all the more remarkable is that it stood alone for so long in making such claims. For centuries the Bible was the only text offering such precise and voluminous detail about the natural realm. The detailed predictive accuracy of the Bible’s authors in addressing all these topics duplex confirming evidence that the God of the Bible created the universe and wrote the instruction manual for humanity’s specific benefit. The accuracy of biblical predictions measures us that the Bible can be trusted in what it says about every issue — scientific and nonscientific.”

Why not a perfect universe — now?

“Many scientists would say the universe is the way it is because there is only one way to build a cosmos that supports intelligent physical life. According to this perspective the pain, suffering, and death experienced by humanity and all life arises from the fact that only one set of physical laws an only one kind of universe permit the existence of life and humans. On this basis some claim the Creator had only one way to build humanity’s home…. God made the universe the way it is to help accomplish as efficiently as possible the ultimate and eternal triumph good over evil. It’s astounding that a single universe could simultaneously accomplish such a complexity of intertwined yet distinct purposes.”

Why the physical laws and dimensions?

“Behavior modifications induced by the manner in which the laws of physics are designed seem especially focused on curtailing expressions of abuse and depravity… The physics and dimensions of this universe simply help restrain evil. They do not conquer it or remove it… That God involves humanity in this ultimate purpose while clearly intending to rescue willing individuals from the cosmic limitations his purposes temporarily require establishes the high value he places on humanity and reveals the love he personifies.”

Why two creations?

“God’s plan is to use this [current] universe to release those who choose life with him to a new level of free will and love far beyond anything ever experienced in earthly life.”

Why is the New Creation better?

“The universe was designed by God for his good purposes. It was not intended to last forever, and it is not meant to be our dream-mobile — but rather the perfect creation to carry us to our unlimited destination.”

Basically, God created this universe just for us, and it was all part of His redemptive plan. Eventually we will enter into a New Creation in which all the issues and drawbacks of this current creation are dealt with.

I can’t wait!

Belief in God in an Age of Science by James Polkinghorne

I really wanted to like Belief in God in an Age of Science by John Polkinghorne. I really did. He says great things in this book like, “The world is not full of items stamped ‘made by God’ – the creator is more subtle than that – but there are two locations where general hints of the divine presence might be expected to be seen most clearly.” What a beautiful statement. 

But then he also states, “The extreme popularity of the indeterminacy interpretation has been due, I believe, not just to its chronological priority but also to a certain naturalness about an approach that allows overt epistemology to be the guide of ontological conjecture.”

… and then he lost me. 

I feel like a failure, but I couldn’t finish it. It’s probably beautiful and poetic and would make my life more meaningful… if it was written in English.

Beyond the Cosmos by Hugh Ross

I guess I'm on a Hugh Ross kick, and I got a second book at about the same time as I received the first. I should have started with this one, Beyond the Cosmos. 

Hugh Ross is a Christian and a scientist. He knows we believers wrestle with questions about how we can experience God when He is not available to our 5 senses. We wish He were more tangible and although we might take it on faith that it is better that Jesus left earth, on a physical level, we struggle to understand why. 

Ross believes that recent scientific discoveries make God more discoverable and understandable and can deepen and strengthen our relationship with Him. 

Scientists have struggled with the number of known dimensions in our universe. Currently we experience 4 - length, width, height, and time - but they knew that was not enough to explain all the things they knew were true. Using complicated math that is way over my head, scientists have come to believe that there must have been at least 10 dimensions at some point in the very beginning nanoseconds of the universe. Six of these dimensions still exist but are hidden. Only 4 remain available to us.

Interestingly, scripture hints at further dimensions. Creation, miracles, Jesus' post-resurrection abilities, and paradoxes seem to require extra dimensions. 

Through complicated scientific reasoning, Ross posits the conclusion that God exists in at least 11 dimensions - our 4, plus the 6 hidden, and one extra time dimension available to Him outside our universe. We already see a clear establishment in Scripture for God being "outside of time" or experiencing time differently than we do. (One thousand years are as a day and one day is as one thousand years.)

One area the extra-dimensionality of God comes into play is in apparent paradoxes within Scripture. These are the areas Christians have struggled with for thousands of years. How can two ideas that seem to contradict both be true? The classic example is free will vs. God's sovereignty. Because we experience time in a single line, inextricably moving forward, we cannot imagine experiencing it any other way. But God exists in another time dimension as well. Therefore, rather than seeing time as a line, God sees it as a plane. As such, He can move to any particular place in time and has no beginning or end. He can create an effect before the cause. This is mind-blowing to us, but knowing that God experiences at least one additional dimension of time explains so much that confounds us. He knows us and knows how we will react. He can use this extra-dimensionality to nudge our free-will in the direction He ultimately determines. 

God can also use this extra-dimensionality to, in effect, stop time. It is one way to explain how He can "hear" all of us at once. If God experiences time in 2 dimensions, He can, so to speak, "park" in one moment and spend all the time He wants with one individual. Then He can "park" in the next second and spend hours or days with the next. This is an incredible insight into God's great concern for us individually. While time, for us, keeps moving, it doesn't for God. Incredible. 

Ross discusses another little mentioned, but whispered idea, will heaven be boring? No time, just sitting on a cloud, doing... what? Because we cannot conceive of any reality beyond our four dimensions, Ross uses the gap between two-dimensionality and three-dimensionality to make it more understandable. If, for example, we put God in the three dimension category and ourselves in the two dimension, we can picture the difference one more dimension makes. We, then are like people on TV - flat screen people who cannot imagine the dimensionality of depth. God is outside the TV. Obviously this makes communication difficult and ideas He may delight in telling us about simply become impossible to describe. (I liken it to trying to explain quantum physics to my dog.) He may invade our world, but to us two-dimensional beings, it only confuses us. Our understanding of the that 3D world is woefully inadequate. 

Yet if heaven is in not only one extra dimension, but seven or more, there is no way we could conceive of what that even means! (Eye hath not seen, ear hath not heard, neither hath it entered into the mind of man...) We are SO limited, yet in our arrogance, believe we "know" so much!

This also helps explain paradoxes like the Trinity. Ross pictures God poking a finger through the screen. We screen people do not see a three dimensional finger, but a dot. If He pokes three fingers through, we see three dots. We have no idea that they are part on one whole. If he puts His whole hand through, we see an irregular ellipse, but cannot really connect that to the dots we saw before. Extra-dimensionality makes easy work of unbelievably complex doctrines. At the same time, all those extra dimensions make light of our attempts to understand Him. He is literally infinitely more complex than we can know.

Now the Incarnation become that much more overwhelming. Jesus gave all that up, to live like one of us - a screen person. Yet we see in His miracle the ability to access that extra-dimensionality. He calms the waves in the storm with a word. How? In a moment, He transitions back to the other dimensions and exercises control over His own creation and then instantly changes back to a place of submission under it. 

We are in awe of Christ when we discover what He gave up, but then we are horrified when we ponder the ramifications. Not only did He sacrifice so much coming to earth, but His death was far worse than we have imagined. Scripture says He was slain before the foundation of the earth and we shall see Him at the end as a lamb just slain. If Jesus can experience the same time extra-dimensionality we've already discussed, it is possible that the time He hung on the cross was almost infinite. He could have suffered for each of us individually. For every sin. For every transgression. It's overwhelming. 

What about pre-destination? Clearly Scripture tells us that God predestines us. And yet our lives feel like a series of free-will choice. However a little examination shows that to be suspect. We did not choose where and when and to whom to be born. God, with His extra-dimensionality, is easily able to manipulate circumstances that will direct us to a saving knowledge of Him. Therefore, because of God's extra-dimensionality of time, His foreknowledge and predestination become one and become impossible to separate. Also, Scripture clearly states that once we claim Him as Lord, He will preserve us, limiting the impact satan can have on us. Scripture also clearly states that there is a point of no return, when we have allowed satan's impact to push us to a point where we no longer respond to the promptings of the Holy Spirit. God makes is clear that each one of us will decide one way or another before we die. 

Ross jumps into the question that confounds believers everywhere. What about the presence of evil? He actually turns this question around. He believes that the prevalence of evil actually points to the existence of God. Pure evil would not exist in a purely evolutionary world. It requires something more, something outside our familiar dimensions, to make sense of the suffering and evil we see. 

Ross ends by showing that we are like the ancient Israelites on the journey to the Promised Land. They could not conceive of what awaited them and therefore longed for the familiar. They did not understand that the journey was necessary. The pain and suffering associated with it were unavoidable. We too, are unable to imagine all God has in store for us, and cry out for relief, but the existence of extra-dimensions gives us a clue as to His ultimate plan.

John the revelator tries to describe what awaits us in the "New Heaven and the New Earth." Yet, neither he, nor we, can possibly know what will exist when everything is made new. I can't wait!!

More Than a Theory by Hugh Ross

I recently discovered Hugh Ross. I suppose I am behind the curve, but oh well. As soon as I heard of him, I went on the library site and immediately put on hold every book they had by him. The first book I received was More Than a Theory:Revealing a Testable Model for Creation. I'm not sure if it was the best book to begin with, but that's how it goes. 

He states up front that, “The purpose of this book is to present a creation explanation for the record of nature in an acceptable scientific form.” So I gather this is a book written primarily to fellow scientists. However, I as a lay person with little scientific bona fides, I struggled a bit. However, he states that the debate really seeks to answer, not so much the question of how we got here, but what does life mean. That I could get behind!

To my mind, he never quite laid out exactly what the Reasons To Believe (his foundation) model actually is. I know what it is not because he makes it clear what they are to be tested against. His theory is not Darwinian Evolution, Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Progressive Creationists, Theistic Evolution, or Intelligent Design. 

However, on the website, he offers this:

Reasons to Believe uses the term model in reference to our effort to summarize physical (observational) and biblical data relevant to creation into a coherent explanatory framework. The following foundational beliefs help shape how we interpret the data.

1. The Bible (including Genesis 1–11) is the error-free word of God.
2. The creation account of Genesis 1 follows a basic chronology.
3. The record of nature is also a reliable revelation from God.
4. The message of nature will agree with what the Bible says.
5. The Bible contains a selective summary description of God’s creation activity (e.g., no mention of dinosaurs, bipedal primates, quantum mechanics, or the existence of other solar system planets).
6. God gives humans the privilege to fill in the details, carefully, through patient, ongoing exploration and increased understanding of the natural realm.

Hugh Ross found that the Bible spoke to his own scientific mindedness when he was in high school. He saw evidence of the scientific method in Genesis 1 and 2 and believes the scientific method actually owes its start to the Reformers reading of Scripture. Therefore, he believes the Bible’s own theory of creation will withstand rigorous scientific testing. 

In fact, he uses the rest of the book to show how further scientific knowledge confirms, rather than denies, the Biblical account. He states, “Science has now verified the Bible’s ancient claim that the universe’s causal Agent exists and operates from outside the universe. The space-time theorems of general relativity and the proven reliability of general relativity to accurately describe cosmic dynamics establish that the universe’s causal Agent is not bound by space, time, mater, energy, or the physical laws in any way. All these entities were created by a Source beyond themselves.”

He talks a bit about the new theory of Multiverses to explain away all the “fine-tuning” arguments. It has become apparent to even the most atheistic of scientists that our universe definitely looks designed. The Multiverse theory is the last gasp of scientists sputtering, “But it cannot be.” It is, in effect, the way they admit believers are right, but maintain their dignity. 

Ross ends by describing the hunger students have for a correlation between science and faith. He gives examples of people whose interest in science was awakened when they discovered there might actually be a point to all of this. 

And in the end, isn’t that the point?!?