That's right. Tomorrow marks the first day in the 30 day countdown to the final submission of my dissertation. We also have a date set for the defense (on my grandmother's birthday, no less). So, keeping fingers crossed that nothing goes horribly wrong, we'll be finishing up in December as planned. Between now and then it means a lot of very long days.
Also, I've applied for a real job. I already have the post-doc lined up at UNC, but it never hurts to apply for a real job when it's offered. It's a permanent job along the lines of what I do now that is reasonably close to our current house. More on this later. Don't expect to hear anything further until December or January.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Godparents
Today H and I became godparents to the three-month-old Ms. MMVW. Here's a pic of our new godchild:
Isn't she cute. You can also see one of her baptismal gifts in the picture, a prayer rope (think 'Eastern rosary') that we made for her. Needless to say, we're very proud godparents.
Isn't she cute. You can also see one of her baptismal gifts in the picture, a prayer rope (think 'Eastern rosary') that we made for her. Needless to say, we're very proud godparents.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Logic of Science
Yesterday a word or phrase in a fiction piece that I was reading set me to thinking about science, the incarnation, and matter. It struck me as newly interesting both that scientists see God as an unnecessary postulate and that Christians are so insecure about the success that science has in doing so. In another way, scientists posit that we are just physical material, while Christians hope for more. But it dawned on me that there is another way to see what is going on, that maybe scientists have unwittingly pointed out an important flaw in the modern Christian's response to the world.
Suppose that I frame the scientist's contention slightly differently. Instead of "We are all only physical things" perhaps the scientist might be saying, in his own way, "We are all fully physical things". That is, perhaps we find the conflict with scientific materialism because we cannot fathom that we are fully and substantially created things. So, contrary to our wish, there is no point in exploring our creatureliness at which we find something that transcends that creaturely physicality (not that all creatures are physical, e.g., angels, but that physicality seems to be intrinsic to our creatureliness). This seems to be suggested in Paul's discourse in 1Cor15. We are, for now, physical bodies.
I'm not sure that this makes any real headway, except to suggest that science, even as we have received it, does point to the fullness of created things, that we cannot get behind that which we are. It is also suggestive, to me, of the mystery of the incarnation. We say that Jesus was fully God, fully man. The latter profession seems to claim that "taking on flesh" for Jesus meant that God took on the physical character of creation, that a scientist would come to the conclusion that Jesus was "just a man" but only because science cannot make a distinction between "just a man" and "fully man". It is very hard to fathom just how we can or should understand something that is not somehow materially present to scientific prodding. But it seems to me that science also cannot distinguish in its logic between "only material" and "fully material". Rather, science confirms for us the fullness of created being, that there is no point at which our inquiry into physical nature runs aground on a sort of Deus ex Machina (Table -> Wood -> Molecule -> Atom -> Electron -> Quark ->... oh, there you are, God!). This, I think, is what the "fullness" of created being is about, that it is complete in its physicality, and that we cannot get behind it through physical inquiry - there is no short circuit to God.
To sum up: Christian insecurity about the claims of scientific materialism seems to hinge on the ability of science to "fill the gaps" in scientific theory, thereby squeezing out God. But this "gaps" mentality rests on the notion that, for God to be at all, at some point the physical must be reduced to something spiritual, that there must be a step in the advance of scientific knowledge of the nature of matter at which we say, "This is made up of these and, oh wait, this is made of spiritual stuff." I suggest only that this notion is unnecessary, and that the world can be fully material without being only material, and further that science has not the tools to distinguish between those options.
Suppose that I frame the scientist's contention slightly differently. Instead of "We are all only physical things" perhaps the scientist might be saying, in his own way, "We are all fully physical things". That is, perhaps we find the conflict with scientific materialism because we cannot fathom that we are fully and substantially created things. So, contrary to our wish, there is no point in exploring our creatureliness at which we find something that transcends that creaturely physicality (not that all creatures are physical, e.g., angels, but that physicality seems to be intrinsic to our creatureliness). This seems to be suggested in Paul's discourse in 1Cor15. We are, for now, physical bodies.
I'm not sure that this makes any real headway, except to suggest that science, even as we have received it, does point to the fullness of created things, that we cannot get behind that which we are. It is also suggestive, to me, of the mystery of the incarnation. We say that Jesus was fully God, fully man. The latter profession seems to claim that "taking on flesh" for Jesus meant that God took on the physical character of creation, that a scientist would come to the conclusion that Jesus was "just a man" but only because science cannot make a distinction between "just a man" and "fully man". It is very hard to fathom just how we can or should understand something that is not somehow materially present to scientific prodding. But it seems to me that science also cannot distinguish in its logic between "only material" and "fully material". Rather, science confirms for us the fullness of created being, that there is no point at which our inquiry into physical nature runs aground on a sort of Deus ex Machina (Table -> Wood -> Molecule -> Atom -> Electron -> Quark ->... oh, there you are, God!). This, I think, is what the "fullness" of created being is about, that it is complete in its physicality, and that we cannot get behind it through physical inquiry - there is no short circuit to God.
To sum up: Christian insecurity about the claims of scientific materialism seems to hinge on the ability of science to "fill the gaps" in scientific theory, thereby squeezing out God. But this "gaps" mentality rests on the notion that, for God to be at all, at some point the physical must be reduced to something spiritual, that there must be a step in the advance of scientific knowledge of the nature of matter at which we say, "This is made up of these and, oh wait, this is made of spiritual stuff." I suggest only that this notion is unnecessary, and that the world can be fully material without being only material, and further that science has not the tools to distinguish between those options.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Passed
Today I passed my Ph.D. preliminary exam, the last official hurdle before the final defense, which we hope will be only a few months away.
Good for me. Progress always feels nice.
Combine a succesful preliminary exam with an unexpected prize (for best publication by a doctoral student in the department in 2008), and you have the outlines of a pretty fantastic week.
But, for now, celebration will probably involve a lot of sleep.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Prospects?
So, a friend of mine called yesterday. It seems that he's on a short list of candidates to become Secretary of Natural Resources for a state in the eastern US. He called to see if I would be interested in relocating to said state in order to take a job as a science advisor for policy.
How random is that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
