Vision
Free Will or “Willusion”?
Some neuroscientists have made a mess for themselves. Starting in the 1980s they began conducting experiments with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) which seem to show brain activity prior to conscious action. The implication drawn by many is that our actions are the result of prior brain activity, and that we have no free will. Philosophers disagree, of course, as does just about anyone with the slightest measure of common sense. So do certain neuroscientists. Neuroscientist Eddy Nahmias is one of those, and he refers to those who make that claim as “willusionists” (“Why We Have Free Will,” Scientific American, January 2015). This is a serious debate and an important issue, because it impinges on matters of human responsibility, as in criminal activity and determinations of justice. Dr. Nahmias insists that neuroscience is not sufficiently advanced at this stage to make such a sweeping conclusion, and explains that other experiments seem to support the idea of free will. But Dr. Nahmias insists he is not a “dualist,” that dreaded epithet attached by “wiilusionists” to those who disagree with them, indicating that they believe the mind to be something other than a material substance. No, Dr. Nahmias insists, he believes a “scientific” (read: naturalistic) explanation for free will can be demonstrated without having to resort to “dualist” delusions. He may be right. But it’s rather silly and a bit pathetic watching these learned people working so hard to avoid admitting the obvious: People are more than stuff, and science cannot escape the demands of faith, whatever the bounds of that faith might be. As Nicholas Wolterstorff showed convincingly in his book, Reason within the Bounds of Religion, all thinking, including scientific thinking, takes place within parameters of belief. Those neuroscientists who insist on believing a merely naturalistic view of the world are embarrassing themselves and discrediting their science by refusing to admit that their conclusions are not entirely the result of science, but also of faith. But to do so they would be vulnerable to the charge of yet another illusion, that they believe their own minds to be God.

Small Worlds
Brian Greene is one of a growing number of physicists who believe that the cosmos is one big ball of string. And that it’s not one cosmos, but many. And though 30 years of theorizing have yielded no experimental support to the theory, yet he and his colleagues press on, believing in what they cannot see as they insist the universe must fit their glass slipper formulation. Dr. Greene reports on his experience as a string theorist in the January 2015 issue of Smithsonian Magazine (“Why String Theory Still Offers Hope We Can Unify Physics,” http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/string-theory-about-unravel-180953637/?all&no-ist). He reminds us, as a good scientist, that “Experimental evidence is the final arbiter of right and wrong,” and even though no experimental evidence supports the theory, string theorists push on. It is for them a quest “bordering on spiritual enlightenment”, although why a materialist would choose to express himself in such terms is not clear. The universe may well be comprised by strings and multiple in nature. For me the most interesting aspect of this quest is the courage and conviction of Dr. Greene and his colleagues to press on in faith, striving to discover something they cannot see, because they have become convinced in their minds – without supporting evidence – that their worldview is true. Their tenacity, creativity, energy, and forthrightness shame timid Christians, who hesitate or refuse to stand on their Biblical convictions in pursuit of a whole-orbed, all-comprehending statement of Christian worldview.

Beauty amid Confusion
Nigel Pitman spent many years as a research botanist in the Amazon forest, where he labored with his colleagues to make sense out of their environment, and to bring some scientific order to their surroundings (“Six Pictures of Paradise,” Nautilus, December 25, 2014, http://nautil.us/issue/101/in-our-nature/six-pictures-of-paradise-rp). But what he remembers and appreciates most about his time there are six photographs by renowned art photographer Thomas Struth, which concentrate on the ordinariness, confusion, and chaos of the forest. Years later, Pitman still pores over the photos, and his heart warms with love for a place he could never fully know, though he studied it for years and was familiar with it every day. The complexity, diversity, jumble, and press of the place, captured in those photographs, yet revealed patterns and commonalities, and brought to mind experiences and hopes from his time there. Knowing and wonder in the presence of the familiar but unknowable world around us: Is this not part of what makes things beautiful? What makes God beautiful? 

Disciplines
Historiography
Professional historians understand that, to a very great extent, those who provide the guiding interpretations of the past will establish the vision for the future and the agenda for the present. In an insightful article in Democracy (“What New Left History Gave Us,” December 8, 2014 http://www.democracyjournal.org/35/what-new-left-history-gave-us.php?page=all), Rich Yeselson provides an overview of the struggle between New Left and consensus (conservative) historians in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. New Left historians challenged the settled opinions about the greatness of America and sought to create a new story of the nation, of liberal political and business elites controlling and dehumanizing the masses for their own benefit, and of institutions badly corrupted and desperately in need of revision. It should not be hard to see that, while this project did not entirely succeed, it has reshaped the way many people think about the nation and its priorities. The overall project of New Left historians – to capture the flag of American history-writing and institutionalize their version of America’s past – did not succeed, but they did manage to help move the dial of American political, social, and cultural life decidedly leftward. Meanwhile, not only were very few Christians writing history during this period, even fewer were reading it. And this accounts in no small part for the growing sense of social and cultural irrelevance that most Americans – and even most Christians – hold respecting the faith of Christ.

Science
Apparently the pressure to be the only reliable source of true knowledge can lead to exactly the opposite. Lies and half-truths are increasing within the scientific community as researchers stretch or fabricate truth in order to achieve publication in prestigious journals. According to Jill Neimark, writing in Aeon, the scientific community is experiencing an increase of “scientists seeking demigod status and flying too close to the sun with their claims; journals smitten with a potential blockbuster finding, and overlooking vexing questions ahead of publication; retractions on the rise, entering mainstream awareness, and leaving an entire scientific community frightened of the resulting stigma.” The science media are as much to blame as the scientists, since they can make a career – and prestige for themselves – by publishing what are regarded as blockbuster findings. But haste and carelessness are making waste and corruption in the process: “By the early 2000s, about 30 papers a year were retracted. In 2014, more than 400 retracted papers will be indexed by the Web of Science, an online database of science publications. The many scarlet Rs have triggered soul-searching essays in big-name journals, such as an essay in this October’s Nature, suggesting that this surge highlights weaknesses in the scientific endeavour itself.” Even though bogus papers are retracted, many continue to be the basis for research by other scientists, thus multiplying error down the line. Ms. Neimark believes that the scientific community has become trapped in its own hubris: “Science needs to be nudged back to its humble but glorious beginnings, when discovery itself was the means and the end.” For scientists to recognize that truth comes in various forms from a wide range of disciplines – and not just from the lab – would be a start in the right direction. Don’t look for this anytime soon, however. (Jill Neimark, “The retraction war,” Aeon, 23 December 2014 http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/are-retraction-wars-a-sign-that-science-is-broken/?utm_source=Aeon+newsletter&utm_campaign=04fbce934c-Daily_newsletter_December_23_201412_23_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-04fbce934c-68631581).

Reading
Heather Havrilesky is angry (“Mansplanation Nation,” Bookforum, December/January 2015 http://www.bookforum.com/inprint/021_04/13912). She resents the success of what she calls “mansplainers”, male celebrities of one sort or another who are treated as authorities on just about anything under the sun. Their success on the best-seller lists of The New York Times is a national embarrassment, signaling the demise of the Republic. Reviewing the titles and authors from the past twenty years, “you can almost see the support beams of the American dream tumbling sideways, the illusions of endless peace and rapidly compounding prosperity crumbling along with it. She continues, “Tracking this borderline-hysterical parade of titles can feel like watching America lose its religion in slow motion. Except, of course, this also meant there was a boom industry in patiently teaching faith-shaken Americans precisely how to believe again. Since the new century began, the top spot on the best-seller list most years has been all but reserved for these morale-boosting bromides: Seemingly every politician, blowhard, and mouthpiece willing to instruct us on how to reclaim our threadbare security blanket of patriotism, cultural supremacy, and never-ending growth and prosperity has turned up in that prestigious limelight. If that list is any indication, we’re desperate for something to ease our fears—or to feed directly into those fears with the kind of angry rhetoric that plays so well on cable news.”  And, to her dismay, most of these writers are men who write, as she sees it, condescendingly to women. But it’s readers she is most ticked-off at: “Mostly, though, what Americans seem to want, based on our hardcover purchases, is some way to beg, borrow, or steal our way back to the good life. We want someone to blame. We want someone to fix things.”  Ms. Havrilesky believes a new generation of female writers could offer some real substance in place of this unmitigated literary junk food. Perhaps. But I am sympathetic to a degree with Ms. Havrilesky’s observations. What we read does tell us something about who we are. Just as what we don’t read does the same. Christian whose reading time is consumed by the best-selling Christian writers of the day are not likely to be well-fitted for seeking the Kingdom or fighting the good fight. Spiritual narcissism is no more fruitful a way of life than secular narcissism. Nor is Joel Osteen more reliable in matters of faith than Augustine. He just sells more books.

Tim Parks offers helpful advice concerning how to read in a December 18, 2014 post at The New York Review of Books (“How I Read,” http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2014/dec/18/how-i-read/?). While his focus is on reading novels, he makes four points readers of any written work might use in order to grasp and follow a writer's argument. First, try to determine the writer’s primary values, those views or convictions that seem to matter most. Second, identify the mood of the piece – comic? urgent? angry? questioning? What contrary or competing values does the mood suggest or raise, and how does the writer play these off against the primary value? At the same time, make sure you understand how the various parts and sub-themes relate to the primary value. As Steven Pinker would put it (see on), identify the writer’s purpose, then isolate his or her point regarding that purpose by putting the pieces together under the topic. Finally, ask whether or not the author’s point makes sense. Is this really the way the world works? Is this believable? Follow Mr. Parks’ advice and you’ll be in a better position to learn as much as you can from any piece of writing. 

Writing
One of my goals for the New Year is to improve my writing. But then, I take this as a goal every year, though I have a hard time determining whether I have reached my objective. My strategy is to read a lot, pay attention to every one of Susie’s edits, think about writing more as I write, and read more books like Steven Pinker’s The Sense of Style: The Thinking Person’s Guide to Writing in the 21st Century (New York: Viking, 2014). Here is a true handbook on writing that deals both with the nuts and bolts of good writing – grammar, usage, syntax – and the more overarching techniques that make for good style – be conversational, visual, and clear. I will keep this book on my desk for a while to review the parts I underlined, because I gained some insights into good writing and common usage that exposed me as in violation of each at certain points. If you’re looking for a good overview of what makes for good writing, this book comes as close as any I’ve read over the years. Put your Strunk and White and your Fowler aside, and let Steven Pinker guide you deftly through the Scylla and Charybdis of prescriptive and descriptive writing. 

Outcomes
Culture
Every worldview produces culture, which is defined as the artifacts, institutions, and conventions people use to define, sustain, and enrich their lives. All culture is a mixture of indigenous inheritance and assimilation from other cultures, as Nabeelah Jaffer explains in a June 2014 posting at Aeon (“Is nothing sacred?” http://aeon.co/magazine/culture/why-cultures-shouldnt-just-steal-from-one-another/?utm_source=Aeon+newsletter&utm_campaign=6897ccc924-Daily_newsletter_December_16_201412_16_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-6897ccc924-68631581): “the culture you hold dear will have been shaped by the practices of other cultures at some point.” We must all have culture, but we run the risk of offending members of other cultures when we take their cherished symbols or practices, empty them of their original meaning, and make them into something else – as when the Christian cross is appropriated for commercial or fashion uses. It’s probably the case these days that most of the culture we embrace is absorbed uncritically from the surrounding cultural atmosphere. But this amounts to saying that the creators and mavens of pop culture are defining the terms and forms of culture for the rest of us. We should be more thoughtful and reflective in determining the culture of our lives. As Andy Crouch explains in Culture Making, the only way to change culture is to make more culture. If we want our culture to be more the sort that honors God and edifies our neighbor, then we shall have to bring our Christian worldview to bear more forcefully and consistently on the task. But this does not mean we won’t borrow from other cultures from time to time. As Ms. Jaffer advises, “Look ahead: you have the power to shape the cultural future. Are you sure you won’t draw inspiration from others in turn?” All truth is God’s truth, and all cultural forms that honor Him and refract His glory are potential contributors to a more thoroughly and consistently Christian cultural expression on the part of contemporary believers. But we must be thoughtful, prayerful, and clear about the culture we choose, or we will not be able to manifest the hope within us convincingly.

Peace, Peace, but...
“The world is not falling apart.” So report Steven Pinker and Andrew Mack in a December 22, 2014 post at Slate (“The World is Not Falling Apart,” http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2014/12/the_world_is_not_falling_apart_the_trend_lines_reveal_an_increasingly_peaceful.single.html). In fact, just the opposite appears to be true, at least when certain categories are considered: “The kinds of violence to which most people are vulnerable—homicide, rape, battering, child abuse—have been in steady decline in most of the world. Autocracy is giving way to democracy. Wars between states—by far the most destructive of all conflicts—are all but obsolete. The increase in the number and deadliness of civil wars since 2010 is circumscribed, puny in comparison with the decline that preceded it, and unlikely to escalate.” The authors blame the media for giving the impression that the world is more dangerous than ever. It is not, at least, not according to the statistics the authors marshal in support of their claim. Instead, the authors insist, we have many reasons to believe in a brighter, safer, and more hope-filled future. Security, of course, is not the only source of hope. More people live in slavery today than during the entire period of the Anglo-American slave trade. The arts have all but lost sight of beauty and form, though not of the almighty dollar. Pop culture continues to kudzuize all culture and many other aspects of life. Education chugs along in its determined effort to reduce divine image-bearers to mere getters-and-spenders. A good many Christians remain set in their belief that they have no obligation to the Law of God (and, hence, the Sabbath), the lost and needy of the world, or certain foundational normative principles of Scripture. But Christ remains on His throne and His Kingdom is advancing on earth as it is in heaven. So, while much work remains, there are, indeed, good reasons to hope. Violence or not.

Envoi

Thought and Craft

In the war against time and mortality which is my writing, thought and craft unite to reclaim as much lost ground as possible from the enemy of truth. In this expedition, thought is both general and foot soldier, while craft manages the logistics of communication and supply. Thought maps the field and plots the attack, then rushes the objective like an unruly horde, staking out and claiming all the available resources and materiel, engaging the occupiers, hauling down their flags and raising my own, and scrambling over the invested ground with an ordered mania that finds them crashing into and tumbling over one another, joining new regiments, and plotting new campaigns. Meanwhile, craft brings up just enough supplies to feed and furnish far-ranging thought before it moves on to the next assault, and lingers to tidy up the grounds and prepare an acceptable report of the conquest. 

T. M. Moore