Why would a scientist be a Christian?

A group from my church is going through the Test of Faith video series. I think it is an excellent introduction to exploring the relationship between science and Christianity. Much of it is based on interviews with leading scientists who are Christians and some theologians who have backgrounds in science.

The website also has some excellent resources.
I liked this brief interview with Simon Conway Morris (Professor of Evolutionary Palaeobiology at Cambridge University) about why he is a Christian.

What should motivate Christian ethics?

Christian ethics is the human reaction to the coming of Christ into this world and is an anticipation of his future in the new world. That is why every good Christian ethics ends in doxology, so as with the praise of God to intensify the cry of hope, "Amen, come Lord Jesus!" (Rev. 22:20). For in Christian ethics it must be clear that, we do not make use of God in order to change the world, but we change the world in order to enjoy God, as Augustine said.

Jurgen Moltmann, Ethics of Hope, page 229

Can atheism be detrimental to science?

A common caricature of religion is that it is opposed to science and has even hindered the development of science. The New Atheists certainly promote this view.
A previous post discussed why most modern historians disagree with this caricature.

One might ask an alternative question.
Is atheism always good for science?
Have there been historical examples where atheist ideology has been opposed to scientific progress?
Helge Kragh has a nice paper The Universe, Cold War, and Dialectical Materialism
which discusses a significant example in the former Soviet Union. Although, it was at the centre of many advances in theoretical physics, research in big bang cosmology was opposed because it was considered to be "religious" and opposed to Marxist-Leninist theory.

A life lived in fear is a life half lived

This is the key line in the movie Strictly Ballroom. I first saw it many years ago after it first came out in 1992, but watched it again this week with my family.
It says something about Australian culture. But, I am not sure what...
It also shows how parents should not try and live their lives through their children..

The trailer below captures some of the passion. But, to an Australian the American accent is hilarious and spoils it...

Nike ministry

Just do it!

This is something I have been challenged by the example of Christians I have met in the developing world.

In the affluent Western church it seems that new initiatives require planning, policies, fund raising, formal approval, hiring and training full-time paid staff, meetings, administrative staff, offices, more fund raising, buildings, organisational structures, ....

These all may have some role in Christian ministry and mission in a Western context. However, I am struck [within my limited experience] by how in the developing world most of the above does not seem to constrain or determine what Christians do. If there is a need to start an orphanage, or plant a church, or grow a theological college, they will just do it. They don't seem too concerned about having a salary [let alone a good retirement fund!], staff with all the "right" formal theological education, or all the right policies.
They tend to just start things and then later as they grow try to put in place appropriate staff and structures.

The non-Western model encourages initiative, risk taking, sacrifice, and volunteerism. It is efficient and frugal, and reduces bureaucracy and careerism.

A missed opportunity

I enjoyed watching The Iron Lady, a depiction of aspects of the life of Margaret Thatcher. She has the distinction of being the only female Prime Minister  of the U.K. and the longest serving one in the 20th century. She is also arguably one of the most controversial and divisive Western political leaders of the second half of the 20th century.

I have three concerns about the movie, listed in increasing order of importance. First, it jumps around an awful lot, making extensive use of "flashbacks". For people who don't know some of the history and the events depicted this is probably very confusing and superficial. Second, I think it is quite disrespectful and heartless to centre a movie around the possible dementia of a living person. Third, it is a missed opportunity to reconsider and evaluate the performance and legacy of such an influential and important political figure. One just hopes that the movie motivates audiences, particularly younger British ones, to learn a little about Thatcher and her policies. I found reading the Wikipedia page helpful. There are somethings to admire and appreciate and some things to be horrified at.

Why is the Higgs boson called "the God particle"?

Not for important scientific, philosophical, or theological reasons.

The term arose with a book entitled, The God Particle, published in 1993 by Leon Lederman, a Nobel Prize winning physicist and science writer Dick Teresi. Wikipedia states:

Lederman said he gave the Higgs boson the nickname "The God Particle" because the particle is "so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our final understanding of the structure of matter, yet so elusive,"^[5][6][7]but added that a second reason was because "the publisher wouldn't let us call it the Goddamn Particle, though that might be a more appropriate title, given its villainous nature and the expense it is causing."^[5][8]

I would say Lederman, being an elementary particle physicist, overstated the importance of the Higgs boson. I would restate his claim as the Higgs boson is "central to the state of  elementary particle physics [just one sub-field of physics]  and some aspects of cosmology today, so crucial to our current understanding of elementary particles, yet so elusive."

Whether or not the Higgs boson exists is irrelevant to nuclear physics, atomic physics, solid state physics, biophysics, optics, thermodynamics, statistical physics, chaos, fluid dynamics, chemistry, .....