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, .....

Secularists oppose a truly secular state

Recent riots involving parts of the Muslim community in Australia have stimulated significant debate. I thought this Opinion piece by Paul Kelly, Editor at Large of The Australian newspaper was quite insightful and appropriate, reflecting on what it means for Australia to be a secular state. Here is an extract:

It is equally important, however, to acknowledge the secular state is under assault not just from religious crusaders but from secularists. In Australia today racist language is a taboo, yet attacks on religious belief are frequent and almost fashionable. 

The sanction extended to media displays of contempt for people with religious belief, notably Christianity, seems to reflect a new prejudice by people many of whom aspire to drive religion from the public square into the exclusively private realm. 

Perhaps they do not comprehend, but this is a direct assault upon the secular state and the terms of peaceful co-existence between the state and religion. In this concept, the state became neutral between believers and non-believers and neutral among different types of believers. 

Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion.

It is important to acknowledge that even the term "secular" was coined by Christians and used in a positive light by Augustine and Luther. That was something I learnt recently in a fascinating history seminar.

Science vs. Religion: Does anything change?

In his 1933 biography of Thomas Aquinas, G. K. Chesterton wrote words he intended as a retrospective but which are just as descriptive of the 1990s as of the 1860s. They could serve as a summation for Ronald Numbers' extraordinarily helpful book:  

"Private theories about what the Bible ought to mean, and premature theories about what the world ought to mean, have met in loud and widely advertised controversy, especially in the Victorian time; and this clumsy collision of two very impatient forms of ignorance was known as the quarrel of Science and Religion."

Mark Noll, in a  Review (published in First Things in 1992) The Creationists by Ronald Numbers,
The review is really worth reading, particularly as it provides such a nice summary of the book [which has since been updated and republished].

Justice and truth matter

The dramatic images below are taken from the start of last weekends English Premier League football game between Liverpool and Manchester United

They mark the recent release of a long overdue UK Government report into the Hillsborough disaster in which 96 Liverpool fans died.

Regardless of what postmodernists say truth does matter and we are wired with a yearning and passion for truth and justice. Where does this come from? Perhaps, from being made in the image of the God of truth and justice.

Worrying about the Bomb

I enjoyed watching The Crimson Tide, which depicts (fictional) events in a US nuclear submarine at the brink of a nuclear holocaust caused by Russian nationalist extremists seizing control of nuclear weapons in the 1990s. The movie is built around the clash of personalities and the struggle for power between an aging battle hardy coarse white captain [Gene Hackman] and his younger well-educated and diplomatic black deputy [Denzel Washington] who has no combat experience.

Two memorable lines:

We are about saving democracy, not practising it. 

There is no nuclear war, only nuclear holocaust.

The movie ends with the claim:

As of January 1996, primary authority and ability to fire nuclear missiles will no longer rest with U.S. submarine commanders... Principal control will reside with the President of the United States.

Besides being good entertainment the movie had two striking messages.

First, the importance of personal relationships for a meaningful life. Hackman's character is tragic/pathetic because his coarse and authoritarian life means he is left with only one meaningful relationship: with his comfort dog, a cute little terrier.

Second, the scenario for the outbreak of nuclear war is quite believable. I think the end of the Cold War has increased rather than decreased the chances of nuclear war. This seems contrary to public perceptions and priority. The issue of nuclear weapons seems to get less political attention than during the Cold War. Why am I so concerned?
The very large nuclear arsenal [about 20,000 weapons] in the former Soviet Union is not particularly well maintained or secure and so is prone to theft, accident, or seizure by extremist political or terrorist groups. The Wikipedia page on Nuclear Terrorism gives good reason to be concerned.

1983 demonstration in Sydney, Australia

Should theologians talk about science?

As a scientist it can be "interesting" at times to see what some theologians write about science, both in general or specific aspects of science. Sometimes they seem to struggle to distinguish between what is mainstream science, what is idle speculation, and what is plain wrong. This is understandable.

I am reading through the chapters on the environment in Jurgen Moltmann's Ethics of Hope. I was disappointed to see that he begins his discussion with the Gaia Theory of the Earth, due to James Lovelock, as if this is some well established part of scientific knowledge. Just reading the abstract of this 2003 scientific paper The Gaia Hypothesis: Conjectures and Refutations one can see that there are significant problems with Gaia.

There are many reasons why Christians should be concerned about the environment. Indeed, Moltmann has some nice discussion about some of the relevant Biblical texts. However, invoking contentious "scientific" speculations does not help the case.

There is a simple antidote to the problem with theologians and pastors mis-speaking about science. It is to check first with a range of scientists that what one has written or plans to say is actually accurate or appropriate.