Why does Power Corrupt?

It's a familiar phrase: Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.

Katczinsky's character in All Quiet on the Western Front comments about the effects of power on men in the army

"but the root of the matter lies elsewhere. For instance, if you train a dog to eat potatoes and then afterwards put a piece of meat in front of him, he'll snap at it, it's his nature. And if you give a man a little bit of authority he behaves just the same way, he snaps at it too. The things are precisely the same. In himself man is essentially a beast, only he butters it over like a slice of bread with a little decorum. The army is based on that; one man must always have power over the other. The mischief is merely that each one has much too much power."

By why is this generally true?

We like to think that mankind is basically good. But this observation of human nature strikes at the very heart of this notion. If man was basically good then power wouldn't corrupt: it would embellish generosity, provide the means for great benevolence, it would produce love not dread.

Instead I think that man is full of self love. We (I included) crave the adulation of others and that they would do our bidding. We want to be great. So when a person receives power they enjoy it and they wish to prove to themselves that they have it. But how can one do this? By showing that no one can prevent you doing what you want.

So let's pretend that you've been granted absolute power. You begin with reasonable requests. This gives a buzz for a bit – but aren't people just obeying you because what you're asking makes sense? So then come the unreasonable orders – and what a high. People abjectly humiliating themselves to please your every whim. Yes, truly none can prevent your will.

But then the nagging doubts. You can't really do anything, there are moral taboos; don't they represent the rules of some higher power?

Next the subtle whispering begins.

Why should you obey some ancient moral scruples? Who's to say you can't do these things?

Then your conscience fights back screaming – “It's wrong!”

The silky voice replies “Says who? You decide what's right and wrong.”

“God says” your conscience answers.

“Does he really?” scoffs the voice, “Like He'd strike you down?”

“Yes, you'll have to answer,” your conscience musters.

“No you won't. You're the highest power,” the voice encourages. “Now prove it. Violate these superstitions. Show the world you're just like God.”

So that's my theory. When people are given power they need to demonstrate  to themselves that they truly have it. The ultimate way to accomplish this is to do something that you know to be morally wrong - even reprehensible – and show that nothing can stop you. To prove that you are answerable to no one. This is our great desire that power unveils: to be like God.

So the fact that power corrupts people is evidence that man is fallen. That the Bible's view of man fits with reality. That we are not naturally good, but rather, selfish, consumed with ourselves and rebels against God. We have all followed after the lie of the serpent in the garden.

“No! You will not die,” the serpent said to the woman.  “In fact, God knows that when you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”  Genesis 3:4-5.

Science versus History

I've met a number of atheists over the years who claim they only believe what can be shown to be true by science. The evidence must be peer reviewed. They discount all other evidence. When challenged by the historical evidence for Jesus being better than that of Tiberius Caesar they declare that history is untrustworthy so they don't believe in Jesus and they don't believe in Caesar.

This position is obviously extreme and it represents only a tiny minority of atheists but it does reflect our current cultlure: Science is Top Dog. Science is the best way of determining the truth. Science trumps history.

But I think that this just isn't so. I think Science = History.

Let me explain.

How does science work?

In an ideal world:

Science is based on observations. To explain those observations someone creates a hypothesis. Experiments are then devised that can falsify the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is not falsified then increasing trust is placed in that explanation for the data until we might say we have a scientific theory e.g. of gravity.

Now the essence of good science is that the experiments are repeatable; someone else can repeat the experiment and get the same results. You can go check it for yourself.

So far so good. I can believe the theory is true because I can go out and test it. But here's the catch.

Do you test it?

For gravity I do. I'm always dropping stuff and it always falls to the ground with a reassuring clatter.

But what about theories of particle physics? Cosmology? Evolution?

I bet you don't.

So how do you know it to be true?

Trust.

It's been peer reviewed. Great. This means that some other group of scientists have repeated the experiments and found the result to be true. This might be true. But experiments are costly, require specialist equipment and large amounts of time and money. And some data – like a long running climate study - can never be repeated. So what's more likely is that they checked that the methodology sounded reasonable and that they too took the results on trust. And unless someone needs to replicate the results for their own work any fraud or error is unlikely to be discovered.

But surely a scientist wouldn't commit fraud would they? They're committed to the pursuit of truth...

and...

fame, research funding, getting published, promotion, job security, a pet theory, minimizing effort etc. ...

They're human. And if you not quite sure that's possible then read this and this.

So ultimately when we trust a peer review article we trust that the scientists who wrote and reviewed are reliable. That they are reliable eyewitnesses of the experiments they record. And on the whole that's a reasonable assumption to make.

So that's the first catch – or rather similarity with history. With history we have to trust that ancient writers are accurately reporting the events of their day. But this isn't done naively – the bias of the writer is considered and their purpose for writing is assessed. And when events they describe can be corroborated from other sources  greater confidence is placed in their accounts. On the whole we can decide if a source is a reliable account of an event.

Which leads us to catch number two.

Observations require interpretation. Just as an historian examines the data and forms a theory as to why an event happened, the scientist's hypothesis is ultimately an interpretation of the known observations. And more than one interpretation can fit the known data. So which interpretation are you going to choose? For the individual scientist that depends on what they've been taught, the theories they have emotionally invested in and what's currently fashionable (i.e. the ruling paradigm). None of which may be true. In other words scientist are biased – just like other people. But it doesn't stop there. The scientists who peer review your work are also biased and if they don't like your interpretation – even though it explains all the known observations – your work may never get published. And if you're not sure of that, here are three examples where  publishing against the paradigm is unlikely to suceed : climate change, evolution and the big bang.

Thus I think science and history are similar methods of knowing: both require trusting a source of observations and weighing up the explanatory power of any proposed interpretation.  Ultimately, a scientific paper is an historical record of observations along with an interpretation. Science is not the be all and end all of knowledge as many think. It's not a statement of ultimate truth.

 Science doesn't trump history.

The Word on a Mountain

 

We all know the story of the Transfiguration. Jesus goes up a Mountain with Peter, James and John and there He begins to shine like the sun. Moses and Elijah appear. Then God speaks from a bright cloud declaring “This is my Beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to Him.”

This is the greatest revelation of who Jesus is the Gospel. From here we descend to to Jerusalem for the beloved Son to die in our place. Rejected. Forsaken. For us.

But why do Moses and Elijah  appear?

The traditional interpretation is that they represent the Law and the Prophets who all point to the Messiah. The transfiguration demonstrates that Jesus is far greater than the Law and the Prophets. He is the Messiah we are to heed. However I think there is even more going on here. What do Moses and Elijah have in common? They both had God reveal Himself to them on mountains. So lets have a closer look at those passages.

Moses First. (Exodus 34)

4 Moses cut two stone tablets like the first ones. He got up early in the morning, and taking the two stone tablets in his hand, he climbed Mount Sinai, just as the LORD had commanded him.

 5 The LORD came down in a cloud, stood with him there, and proclaimed His name Yahweh. 6 Then the LORD passed in front of him and proclaimed:

   Yahweh—Yahweh is a compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger and rich in faithful love and truth, 7 maintaining faithful love to a thousand generations, forgiving wrongdoing, rebellion, and sin. But He will not leave the guilty unpunished, bringing the consequences of the fathers’ wrongdoing on the children and grandchildren to the third and fourth generation.

 8 Moses immediately bowed down to the ground and worshiped.

Now Elijah. (1 Kings 19)

So he got up, ate, and drank. Then on the strength from that food, he walked 40 days and 40 nights to Horeb, the mountain of God. 9 He entered a cave there and spent the night.

    Then the word of the LORD came to him, and He said to him, “What are you doing here, Elijah?”

 10 He replied, “I have been very zealous for the LORD God of Hosts, but the Israelites have abandoned Your covenant, torn down Your altars, and killed Your prophets with the sword. I alone am left, and they are looking for me to take my life.”

 11 Then He said, “Go out and stand on the mountain in the LORD’s presence.”

   At that moment, the LORD passed by. A great and mighty wind was tearing at the mountains and was shattering cliffs before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake. 12 After the earthquake there was a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire there was a voice, a soft whisper. 13 When Elijah heard it, he wrapped his face in his mantle and went out and stood at the entrance of the cave.

   Suddenly, a voice came to him and said, “What are you doing here, Elijah?”

So who is it standing with Moses and Elijah on the mountain top? Who do they speak to face to face with when they can't see the LORD and live? It's the LORD! It's the Word of God. Moses and Elijah are not alone on the Mountain top. The Word of God is with them showing them God.

So back to the transfiguration. Moses and Elijah are standing there again on a Mountain as the Glory of the Lord passes by. And once again they're not alone. Someone is standing there with them.

Jesus isn't just being declared to be God's Son. He's demonstrating that He is the Word of God on a Mountain. He reveals the Father to us!

John 1:14-14

14 The Word became flesh
and took up residence among us.
We observed His glory,
the glory as the One and Only Son from the Father,
full of grace and truth.
15 (John testified concerning Him and exclaimed,
“This was the One of whom I said,
‘The One coming after me has surpassed me,
because He existed before me.’”)
16 Indeed, we have all received grace after grace
from His fullness,
17 for the law was given through Moses,
grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
18 No one has ever seen God.
The One and Only Son—
the One who is at the Father’s side—
He has revealed Him.

Quotes from the Office

It's been a while since I last blogged. 

Since then, I've submitted the final copy of my thesis, moved to live in a new city and have started my new job. God has been good in providing for all those things. But it hasn't left me much time for blogging. So in lieu of a serious post, here are some quotes from my time as a mathematics PhD student. Comments from postgrads are denoted by a P and those by lecturers with an L to protect the... ahem... guilty?

P: I hate mathematicans you know.

L: Maths is the best way to learn how stupid you are.

L: Seminars are a great place to have a quiet think.

P: I do the lottery because I'm supposed to be rich.

P (female): I was swapped with Prince William at birth.

P: Does break imply working before and after?
L: It's not a necessary condition.

P: You're growing your hair, aren't you. Radially.

L: It's confusing, just like a good piece of mathematics should be.

P: I don't read the news. I read facebook.

P: I was in the middle of textin' an' I thought I'd lost my phone.

L: I have a bizarre question. Where do we live?

P: sigh I haven't used a ruler in years!

P: It's not everyday I come to work in my slippers.

P: It's on facebook so it must be true.

P: I'm not a feminist: I'm bolshy.

P: One die, two dice or if it's a really bad day everybody diiiies!

And finally a quote from by an undergraduate on their coursework, to which I can truly relate:

Do not know where to go with this. Not happy with it, but spent way too much time on it, and may throw my computer out the window if I see this on it again!

When are You Most Happy?

 

When are you most happy?  What are occasions when you're most contented?  What do they all have in common?

I might be happy running in the woods, staring at a sunset or listening to choral masterpiece.  Sometimes it might be basking in the glow of some accomplishment: but that doesn't last. There's greater pleasure in performing some task well. Reveling in the mastery of some human faculty.  Or more simply: in making someone else's day.

Mostly I think I'm happiest, when I'm most self forgetful.  When I just enjoy being, without introspection.  When my focus is external to myself.

Is this just me?

What about you?

And what does this tell us about humanity?

Hallelujah! I've Passed!

Praise God! Yesterday I had my viva voce and I passed my PhD subject to minor corrections.  I displayed my complete ignorance on a couple of occasions but somehow they let me through.

God has been good to me.  I've been really stressed about passing my PhD and finding a job afterwards. But, in the last two weeks, He has provided both for me.  So when life gets really stressful, don't give up. Trust God. He loves and provides for His children.

³ Trust in the LORD and do good;
   dwell in the land and enjoy safe pasture.
⁴ Take delight in the LORD,
   and he will give you the desires of your heart.

 ⁵ Commit your way to the LORD;
   trust in him and he will do this:
⁶ He will make your righteous reward shine like the dawn,
   your vindication like the noonday sun. 

Psalm 37:3-6

Bible in Brief

I've just remebered I have this picture.  A bible overview created by the LIFE 2010 team. I hope you enjoy.

From Whence Comes Morality?

 

Where do objective moral values come from?  What makes something good or evil?

Before looking at this question, what do I mean by an objective moral value?  I mean something that can be considered good or bad throughout time and space.  An objective moral value doesn't change.   So where do they come from? Assuming they exist.

Let's assume there's a God. That He is the creator of the universe.  Are morals external to Him?  Something for Him to obey and be judged against?  Or are they His arbitrary rules to which we must conform?

Can there be an evil God?

The first question suggests that there is something that God is not sovereign over, so can He really be God?  And the second is hardly satisfactory: morals just become some crazy test for us to pass.  So here's a better proposal: that morality reflects God's character.  An action is good in so far as it conforms to how God would act.  Lets see how this leads to objective morals.

If there is a creator then He transcends the universe and time.
Therefore His character does not change in space or time.
Morals reflect God's character.
Therefore morals transcend space and time.
Therefore morality is objective.

So morals are neither arbitrary nor some external rule which God must obey.  So to talk of God as evil makes no sense.  Because if God was different then what we refer to as good or evil would be different.  God is good by definition.

Let's look at some examples. 
Why is adultery wrong?  Because God is faithful and loving, existing as a Trinity.
Why is lying wrong?  Because God is truthful.
Why is murder wrong? Because God is the giver of life, and to take a life is His prerogative.

So how can we know objectively what is right or wrong?  We need to look at how God has revealed Himself.  We need to look to Christ.

This then raises a final question:
If there is no God, can there be objective moral values?

Why do you believe what you believe?

I know the answer that I'd like to give.  But I'm not sure it's true.  We'd all like to say that our beliefs are based on evidence and reason.  But I doubt that's always true.  How big a role do our emotions play?  How much do I believe something... because I want to?

I've noticed how what I want to believe affects how I weigh up competing propositions.  If I want to believe something then I'm more prepared to listen favourably to the arguments.  If I don't want to believe something then I'll search high and low for reasons not to.  I'll still try and rationally weigh up the arguments, but I'd be naive to think I didn't require different burdens of evidence in each situation.

So for Christians and atheists, what might it be about our beliefs that causes us to cling to them?

For Christians:
It's comforting knowing God's watching over our lives and loves us. We cannot face the meaningless of a universe without God. A desire to see justice finally triumph.

For atheists:
A desire for autonomy and not wanting to be accountable to a higher being.  To be thought of as an enlightened person who can see through all this religious bunk. A dislike for who you perceive God to be.

So do you have better reasons for why you believe something?

Or do you just want to?

Submitted!

Hallelujah!

I've finally submitted my PhD thesis. 

I've had four years to do the project, yet somehow managed to only finish with a few hours to spare.  Now all I have to do is: present to the department, defend my thesis, find somewhere to live, and work out what to do with my life...

Not too much then.

But I might have a bit more time to blog now.

Then again...

Book Review: On Giants' Shoulders

 

This is less a book review and more a recommendation. Michael Reeves' book introduces us to some of the most influential theologians of the last 500 years with the plea that we don't ignore them. Reeve's desire is that we study the theologians of the past. In their own words. We should understand their works and influence, the questions they were asking and where they went wrong. And so this short book is designed to whet our appetites for their works. In short: it works for some of them.

Each chapter of the book is devoted to a theologian: Luther, Calvin, Owen, Edwards, Schleiermacher and Barth. The chapter begins with a summary of their life and the context of their writings. This is helpful for understanding what and why they wrote, and gives us an impression of their character. Reeves then summarizes their main works. He finishes with suggestions on which of their writings to make a start. Importantly Reeves comments, not just on each work's importance, but also on their readability. For example, I've always been put of reading Barth by the obscure quotes I come across, but Reeves claims this is the result of his writing style involving long sweeping arguments that don't lend themselves to being quoted. The result of all this is that I'm quite keen to get hold of works by Luther, Barth and Calvin's Institutes. I'm less eager to read Edwards and Owen. And I'm not tempted by Schleiemacher; though I'm probably more sympathetic towards him than I was before reading this book.  There's only so much time avaliable in life for reading. 

So my advice for you: give this book a read – it doesn't take long – and see if you can resist wanting to read some of the works mentioned within.

 

Beware what you believe.

That's right. Beware what you believe, lest it blind you to the truth.

None of us are a blank slate, we all believe lots of different things, and this affects how we interpret the Bible, historical evidence, everything. For example, I was once listening to a sermon, and a possible interpretation of the passage (I can't remember the one) was that Paul could have lost his salvation, but this was ruled out on the basis that the rest of Bible teaches you can't loose your salvation. This rather irked my Arminian sensibilities as I could think of various passages, such as Hebrews 6, that many Christians would interpret to say that you could loose your salvation. So what's going on?

We're confusing our belief system, which (hopefully) we've based on scripture with what the Bible actually teaches. Whenever we interpret a passage we only consider possibilities that fit within our system. Is this wrong? Not necessarily. It's good practise to interpret confusing passages in the light of the more obvious ones, which hopefully form the basis of our belief system. However we should be aware that we're doing this. We should acknowledge that other Christians have come to different conclusions, also based on scripture, and we should (I say this to myself) try to understand why they believe what they do and their methodolgy for doing so. This may change what we believe. It may not. But at the very least it should widen the possible ways a given text could be understood. And this may allow us to arrive at a more accurate interpretation, even if this challenges our nice, neat, pre-existing, beliefs.

True Greatness.

Who do you think of as great?

Churchill leading Britain through WWII, Napoleon sweeping all before him or one of the Caesars ruling the known world? But what makes them great?

We see them as supremely successful, dominating the world in which they lived. They had great power, commanding thousands of men and anyone thwarting their purposes was crushed. But what does God think of as greatness?

Jesus is the Messiah. He's the promised king of the Jews who is to reign over the nations. But when He's heading up to Jerusalem with His disciples, He says that He going there to be handed over to the Romans to be crucified.

“We are going up to Jerusalem,” he said, “and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise.” Mark 10:33-34

That doesn't make sense. The great king of the Jews being humiliated on a cross?

But the problem is our view of greatness.  Jesus says

“You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”  Mark 10:42-45

Sacrificial love is the measure of greatness.

Making yourself nothing for the sake of everyone else. Doing the dishes, cleaning the toilets, picking up litter and doing all the jobs that people hate, not for the praise you'll get, but because you consider others more important than you. That's what counts.

So why is Jesus going to Jerusalem? He going to die. For us. Why did He leave the unimaginable splendour of His throne in Heaven and live a tough life in Israel? To set us free. You may not agree that Jesus needed to die for you. But just savour the picture the Bible presents us with. The Word of God who made you, left all His majesty and honour, to die for you.  On a terrible cross. He didn't command great armies. Or rule a nation. He wandered through Palestine healing the sick and teaching people. All with the aim of going to Jerusalem to die. Doesn't such self-giving love make your heart sing? And turn all our other views of greatness upsidedown?

God's Knowledge of the Future.

In my previous post I gave an example, at least to my mind, of God foreknowing something without ordaining it. But this doesn't answer how this is possible for God to do. And nor does it demonstrate it to someone who won't trust the Bible.  So how does God know the future?

I've heard agnostics and atheists say something along the lines of: “If God knows what my choices are how can He judge me?” Their argument seems to be: if God knows my choices, then my choices must be determined, so I only have an illusion of choice. Thus, how is it fair for God to judge me for an action when I could do no other?

I think the problem with this view, and with Calvinist statements such as

God foreknows what will be because He has decreed what shall be. From here.

No event can be foreknown unless, in some sense, it has been predetermined... Foreknowledge demands certainty, and certainty demands foreordination. From here.

is that they think of God as stuck in time like us. They picture God in the present peering into the future. Because He knows the present perfectly He can run the universe forwards in His mind to see the future. This view only works if we live in a deterministic universe. If indeterminate things are possible then this view of God's foreknowledge can't work or else God can't know the future. But I think that this is a mistaken view of God. Time is part of the universe. Time came into being when the universe began. In fact, according to General Relativity, time flows at different rates at different parts of the universe. This necessitates that God is timeless. He sees the whole of time at once. He knows the outcome of an indeterminate event in the future because He is there, observing it occurring. Just as me observing a coin spinning and twisting through the air and finally landing – didn't determine whether it was a head or a tail – so God observing me in the future doesn't imply that my actions, desires or decisions were predetermined.

It's hard for us temporal beings to picture God knowing all of time at once. So maybe this will help.  Imagine a one dimensional object moving randomly along a line between two points A and B. Because the object is moving randomly we can't predict, from its initial position, where it will be at time t1. But if we are outside of time (see the picture) we can see that at t1 it will be at point B. So because we can see the whole of time we can know with certainty where the being will be at a given time without its position being the result of some deterministic law.

 

I hope this post shows how it is possible for God to know the future exhaustively and allow the possibility that not all our choices are predetermined. However it doesn't answer why God chose to make this particular universe containing you and me and the choices we make.  And I'm not sure if we'll ever be able that question. But we can rejoice that God knows all things.

Remember the former things, those of long ago;
   I am God, and there is no other;
   I am God, and there is none like me. 

 I make known the end from the beginning,
   from ancient times, what is still to come.
I say, ‘My purpose will stand,
   and I will do all that I please.’

Isaiah 46:9-10 

A Question for Calvinists.

I go to a Grace Baptist church and we've just started a two part series on the Ordo Salutis (the Order of Salvation) which is essentially a series on Calvinism. The first of these sessions was on Foreknowledge and Election. Therefore I think this might be a good time to do a couple of posts... or more... on the age old debate about Calvinism. As last night's sermon was on foreknowledge I think I'll start there.

Ignoring what exactly foreknowledge means in some of the hotly disputed passages (context determines the meaning of a word in any given passage), I'll just limit myself to the question:

Can God foreknow something unless He ordains it?

Or, to put it another way: Can people have genuine freedom if God knows what decisions we will make?

Here's a quote from a Calvinistic website:

Simply put, what God foreknows, must, of necessity, be as fixed as that which He has decreed. Therefore, to argue for foreknowledge over against predestination by appealing to the freedom of the will is to argue in a self-contradictory fashion. No event can be foreknown unless, in some sense, it has been predetermined... Foreknowledge demands certainty, and certainty demands foreordination. [Emphasis in Original]

Clearly, he along with others, believes the answer is no. But rather than getting into long philosophical debates I think I'll just raise a question for Calvinists:

Did Adam and Eve have genuine free will at the Fall? Could they have resisted the temptation and not eaten the forbidden fruit?

This is a yes or no question and whatever you answer it has important implications.

If you answer yes, then we have an example of genuine free will and of God knowing what the result of that free will would be. This demonstrates that human freedom can coexist with God's omniscience. It doesn't tell us how it's possible, nor even if we currently have free will, but it does show us that it's possible. God can foreknow a decision without determining it.

If you answer no. Then you claim that God ordained the fall. And to my mind, this makes God the author of sin and evil. And that's not something I'm happy to believe.

The Important Things in Life

How can you know what's important in life?
How can you tell what really matters?

It's easy really.

Remember you're going to die.

Then ask yourself: what would I regret if I died tomorrow?

So what comes to mind?  Money, job, career, holiday, qualifications, car, education, sporting achievements?

For me it's none of these.  What matters are people. It's the friends I've lost contact with, the relationships that have broken down and  the people I haven't told how much they mean to me.  I don't think this is just me. I'd guess most people will say others are the most important things in life.  But why is this?  Is it just because I want to be remembered as a nice bloke or is there some deeper reason? Why are humans so important?

If there is no God, then this life is it. There's nothing else. When I die, what's in my bank account won't matter, but then neither will my relationships.  The best I can hope for is that people remember me as someone who was great – but that won't bother me either, if all I am is worm food.  Moreover, unless I'm someone like Alexander the Great, in a hundred years I'll be forgotten.  It will be as if I'd never existed.  So why is it that my heart tells me that relationships are more important than all else?  Maybe it's because this life isn't all there is, that when I die it's not all over, and that how I relate to people has eternal consequences.

The Bible teaches that people are made in God's image.  That death is not the end.  Therefore relationships matter.  Money, career etc. don't matter – they won't enter eternity - but people do.  And people matter.  God cares about how we treat those who bear His image.  He made us for relationships – with each other, but most importantly with Him.  And this is the relationship we tend to forget most about.  But it's the one that matters the most. It's the one that determines our eternal fate. And if I'm reconciled to my creator then I'll start to put my other relationships right.

So in light of your mortality: how will you live tomorrow?

To AV or not to AV?

That is the question.

And frankly I haven't a clue.

Next Thursday in the U.K. we're having a referendum on whether to change our voting system from First Past the Post (FPTP) to the Alternative Vote (AV) system. So to be a responsible subject I ought to have a think about how to vote. 

The first past the post system is the one we currently have. The person with the most votes wins. It's simple and transparent. But it has its problems: the existence of safe seats and that votes for a minor party seem a waste. The AV system claims to be able to fix this. In the AV system (which we use in student union elections), instead of putting a cross by the candidate you want, you number the candidates you want in order of preference (you don't have to put a number against all of them). The votes are then counted and the person with 50% of the vote wins. If no one has 50% then the candidate who came last is eliminated and their votes are redistributed amongst the other candidates, according to the second preference. This is continued until someone has more than 50% of the vote. So does this fix the problems of FPTP? Does it create any new problems?

Will it make safe seats less safe?

Maybe for some seats. In constituencies where there is currently one clear winner and the remaining vote is spilt between two similar parties then suddenly the seat will becomes more marginal. But in other cases it won't. Where there is one clear winner at the moment and the remaining vote is spilt between lots of different parties then the seat will remain safe. Currently if you live in such a safe constituency, and you don't like the safe candidate, then it doesn't seem worth voting. But what would happen under AV? Maybe everyone's alternative choices will combine under some compromise candidate to oust the current incumbent. And this will make it worth voting. But I think its unlikely.

What about voting for minor parties?

At the last election I was living in a marginal constituency: between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. Under FPTP a vote for a minor party is perceived as a wasted vote. But I voted for UKIP, why? Wasn't that a waste. The reason UKIP (or any other minor party candidate) is seen as a wasted vote is because everyone assumes that everyone else will vote for the two main parties, so they vote for one of the two main parties, even though they don't really represent them. So even though with FPTP you should be voting positively, you end up voting negatively, to keep someone else out. But I voted UKIP anyway, why? Because I decided to vote positively in the forlorn hope that everyone else might also decide to. I decided there wasn't a big enough policy difference between the two major candidates for it to matter much if the which of them got in. Neither represented me. As it turned out, the Conservative won.

With AV I wouldn't have had to face this dilemma – I could have voted UKIP 1^st, Conservative 2^nd, Whoever 3^rd etc. My vote wouldn't have been wasted. In essence I have one positive vote and then can arrange my preferences to arrive at the least worst candidate. This sounds like a better system. But I'm not so sure. I think the minor parties would pick up far more votes than they do. This seems more representative, and if that means people voting positively it would be a good thing. However what is most likely is that the minor parties will be eliminated and their votes redistributed so they'll be no real change. In fact, I fear, the major parties will be blander than ever in the hope of picking up the second preference votes of the other major parties. In short: you can vote centre left in either red, blue, or yellow and various levels of sanity. This is hardly increasing democracy. By voting UKIP in the last election I was sending a message to the conservative party. By moving their policies to the left they have lost my vote. In some constituencies, assuming most UKIP voters are Tories, the UKIP vote lost the Conservatives the seat. The more my vote costs the the Conservatives the more likely they are to decide to shift back to the right - and then people can have a genuine choice at future elections – which might just shake up voter apathy. But under AV the Conservative parties can safely ignore the concerns of UKIP voters as they know they'll pick up the second preferences. The chance to vote for genuinely different alternatives is essential to a healthy democracy; I think AV will erode the remaining differences between the major parties.

The ability to sling one government out and install another is important part of a democratic state. Some people believe that AV will result in more coaltions with the Lib Dems, winning more seats. But coalitions are unaccountable. Both parties seem to rip up their manifestos and blame the fact they're not keeping their promises on the other party. In addition the third party (the Lib Dems) remain in perpetual power and act a king makers. That doesn't seems very representative.

To sum up. AV sounds like a great idea in principle. You can vote for who you want to represent you without feeling you're wasting your vote. I don't think we can tell what the effects of AV will be. Will voter turnout increase and what effect might that have? Will a minor parties be seen as a credible choice and this change the whole political landscape? But as a whole I can't see it changing the grip of the major parties. And as an unintended consequence, their policies will become less distinctive. Do we want to elect the least offensive candidate to the electorate rather than the one most people want? And should people's second, third or fourth preference vote count as much as a first preference? I'm still not sure how I'll vote. My heart says AV, but my head may overule.

Anyway it doesn't matter how I'll vote. How will you vote? This is an important issue to think and pray about. And if you want to know more about the issues then I suggest you read here and look here for a Christian perspective.

P.S. I just found this video clip which demonstrates a serious flaw in the AV system.  By voting for who you want, you can cause someone you don't want to be elected, who wouldn't have been elected if you hadn't voted!

A Prosperity Gospel?

I just finished watching the series Civilization: Is the West History presented by Niall Ferguson. Which you can still currently watch in the U.K. on 4oD. In this fascinating series, Ferguson outlines six feature of western civilization that made the west great which he names killer apps: competition, science, property rights, medicine, consumerism, and the work ethic. Some of the things he covers were disturbing, such as how Africans were treated at the start of the 20^th century, and some were quirky – how jeans brought down the Berlin wall. But what stuck me the most was in the last episode, apart from the inexplicable (that is if you deny the triune God) growth of Christianity in China, was that as an atheist Ferguson was bemoaning the decline of the protestant work ethic and the moral vacuum at the heart of our society. This has got me thinking: does the gospel lead to prosperity?

No! Not in the sense of the money preachers: that with enough faith you'll be rolling in the money. But in a more general sense. The sense that we should work hard as for the Lord, that we shouldn't hanker after material wealth, that the physical world isn't intrinsically bad and inferior to the spiritual, and the wisdom contained in proverbs encouraging saving and hard work. These just relate to the work ethic, but what about individual rights and science? Contrary to the view of Furguson, who sees religion as holding back scoiety, wasn't the birth of science in the west the result of the Christian worldview?  And this quote about rights seems to have some rather Christian assumptions 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  U.S. Declaration of Independence.

I don't think that the gospel is responsible for all of Ferguson's killer apps. For example, I don't see how competition, especially when it results in war is a fruit of the gospel. But enough of Ferguson's killer apps can be related to the Bible's worldview to ask the question:

Did the Gospel make the West great?

Not that making society prosperous is the Gospel's main purpose. Rather it's purpose is to reconcile us to God through Christ. But did it made the West great as a byproduct of this. That by people being brought into relationship with their creator society's values are made more in tune those of our maker and as a result we prosper.

Book Review: End of the Spear

The story of “Operation Auca” has gripped me all my life. The image of the small yellow plane, on the sandbar of Curaray River deep in the Ecuadorian jungle, and the speared bodies of Jim Elliot, Nate Saint, Pete Fleming, Ed McCully and Roger Youderian, has haunted my imagination and challenged my values. What will I give to serve the Lord?

However, I have often wondered: what did their deaths achieve?

They dedicated their lives to making contact and getting the gospel to the Aucas (Waodani); one of the most violent societies to ever exist, with a 60% homocide rate. Yet they were speared to death having only just made contact. Why would God allow such a thing? Why would God let these men fail and die in such a noble endeavour?

End of the Spear picks up the story 40 years later, when Steve Saint (son of Nate) returns to the Waodani to bury his aunt, Rachel, who had lived and shared the gospel with the Waodani for half her life. The book is an exciting account of how God leads Steve to take his family and live with the Waodani for a year, to help them interact with the outside world, and the events that follow. Throughout the book, we get glimpses of what happened on that sandbar through the eyes of the Waodani, and how God has changed their lives. How a people in deep darkness, have seen a great light. And how God has used the deaths of those five men.

So what were the highlights for me?

1. That 20% of the tribe are now Christians.
2. The spearing have, by and large, ended.
3. God's providence and guidance. Steve didn't have some vision or hear a voice telling him to move to the jungle, but God's guidance was unmistakably clear.
4. But the most impressive thing of all, the thing that will stay with me, was the amazing love put on display. Steve's deep love for the people who killed his father and their love for him is remarkable. It's divine. That Steve loves the man who killed his father, as a father, is the greatest of miracles. There is no natural explanation. This can only be the work of the Holy Spirit.

This is God's great apologetic. To take two people who should hate each other and cause them to love each other deeply can only be through Christ. He is our peace.

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” John 13:34-35

The Lure of Academia

What do I want to with my life, and more importantly, why do I want to do it?

I'm currently coming to the end of my PhD and am considering what to do next. I have been considering doing a Postdoc but what is my motivation? What is the lure of academia?

1. Curiosity about maths and how it can be used.
   But isn't it selfish to devote myself to something simply because I want to know more? If I want to know more about history I'll buy a book and read about it, I don't expect to get paid by the taxpayer to satisfy my interests.
2. A desire to teach.
   I like the idea of explaining things to other people and passing on knowledge but quite a few academics dislike teaching, so will I fit in? They see teaching as a distraction from their all important research and moreover you're employed for your research and not your teaching. Since no one can ever guarantee that (pure) mathematics research will ever have a real world application, is this attitude towards teaching justified? Shouldn't the taxpayer expect a return on their money? Isn't this best achieved by analytical minds entering the workplace and not by some really pure result in a narrow field of interest? Shouldn't the students paying their fees and so the academics' salaries expect to be the academics' priority?
3. Pride.
   Do I just want to to show people that I can do research? That I'm not thick. I think a large part of academia is motivated by pride. They work with the attitude that “I will show how clever I am by tackling a tough problem”. They work so that they can get to the top and say “Look, I have X number of publications; I'm the big boy in the field”. And each person thinks that their work is incredibly important, however pure and esoteric, and society owes it to them to continue in them endeavour.
4. Because it's expected of me.
   People assume its the next logical thing to do. I'd look a fool for walking away with no clear idea what to do. But I should fear God not man.
5. Fear of the unknown. 
   I'm institutionalised. I've been in full time education all my life. I have no idea what the Big Bad World is like out there and whether it will blow me down. Where do I fit in?
6. To serve God.
   People in academia need to hear the gospel as much as anyone on the outside. But will being on the inside help? Is this just masking a desire to be credible, to say “look I'm intelligent and am a Christian – you don't have to abandon your reason”? But all this really boils down to is “Trust Christ because I'm clever.” That's an attitude that God will never use to save anyone. In addition

   22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. I Cor 1:22-24.

   Christianity will always appear to be foolish to the wise in the world, it doesn't matter how educated its exponents are.

So having looked at my motivations, a postdoc doesn't seem the wisest idea. I wouldn't mind doing one if I can see how the research might be beneficial to society and if it fits in with the more important things in my life. However I thinks that's unlikely and so it's probably time to move on. There are far more important things in my life than the job I do. Which leaves me pondering what to do next?

I'm afraid of the future and so there's always the temptation to stay in academia and to continue with what I know. But God's in control and He loves me so why should I fear? If I never take a risk, trusting God to provide for me. I'll never live, I'll live forever in a cage of my own making.