Book Notes

Categories Book Notes

Suppressing truth, inventing ghosts

Leave a comment by

“…We believe it was far from here, down at the mouth of the Great River, on the very shore of the sea.”

“Ugh!” said Caspian with a shudder. “Do you mean in the Black Woods? Where all the– the–you know, the ghosts live?”

“Your Highness speaks as you have been taught,” said the Doctor. “But it is all lies. There are no ghosts there. That is a story invented by the Telmarines. Your Kings are in deadly fear of the sea because they can never quite forget that in all the stories Aslan comes from over the sea. They don’t want to go near it and they don’t want anyone else to go near it…And the Kings and great men, hating both the sea and the wood, partly believe these stories, and partly encourage them. They feel safer if no one in Narnia dares to go down to the coast and look out to sea–towards Aslan’s land and the morning and the eastern end of the world.”

~From C.S. Lewis’s Prince Caspian

Prince Caspian heard the truth about Old Narnia and believed it with simple childlike faith, dreaming of the days when all was right, when animals spoke, and Aslan ruled.

Others learned or knew the truth and were terrified.

The Kings of Telmar had plenty of reason to fear the talking animals of Narnia, the dryads and the naiads. They had plenty of reason to fear Aslan.

They were cruel and heartless kings, kings who ruled with injustice and demanded what was not theirs. Old Narnia would have no reason to be kind to them should Old Narnia awake.

Frightened of the implications Aslan’s return might have for their future and power, these kings blocked off every route to Aslan. Using nature and superstition and tradition, they turned the people’s eyes away from the Eastern sea.

They suppressed the truth, claiming that stories of Old Narnia were mere fairy tales, spun by old wives without sense.

They traded their fear of Aslan for a new fear–fear of the ghosts they’d invented, the ghosts they claimed inhabited the woods beside the sea.

The funny thing is that even those who knew perfectly well that the woods surrounding the Sea weren’t haunted, even those who invented the stories of the woods being haunted, found themselves enslaved in the lie of their own making.

They started to half believe it, this tale that they’ve created. They transferred their terror of Aslan into terror of the woods.

By trading fear of something truly powerful with fear of something that didn’t really exist, they thought that they could somehow become secure in their wickedness. So long as they avoided the woods, they could do whatever they wanted, right?

But the kings underestimated their own power.

Aslan exists, whether anyone believes in him or not.

Their actions are deplorable and will be judged, whether they acknowledge the judge or not.

For now, Aslan has given them over to their lies, to the tales they have created to justify their lives, to obscure the truth.

But the lies will not remain forever, the truth will triumph at last–and their foolish dark hearts will be destroyed in the lies they have embraced.

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.”

~Romans 1:18-25

Chronicles of Narnia Reading Challenge

This post is another part of my investigation of how different characters in Prince Caspian relate to the truth. I am reading Prince Caspian as part of Carrie’s Chronicles of Narnia Reading Challenge. Follow the link to see who else is participating in the challenge–and to read some of their posts.

Categories Book Notes

Fairy Tales: Truth Veiled

3 Comments by

The young Caspian is the epitome of child-like faith.

Enthralled with the stories his nurse has told him, longing for days long since past, his faith finds voice when his uncle asks him what he might wish for that would be better than being King of Narnia.

“I wish–I wish–I wish I could have lived in the Old Days.”

The power-hungry Miraz, always alert to threats to his authority, is suddenly watchful, now slyly seeking information from his unsuspecting nephew.

Caspian, too young and too naive to recognize his uncle’s tone, blathers on about the wonders of the Narnia of yesteryear.

Finally, the usurper’s edict comes down. Those were mere fairy tales and Caspian was not to talk–nor even think about such things again.

Fairy tales.

Curious things these.

Lewis recognized their power, their ability to go beyond morals to convey truth.

While scheming parents (or modern ones, as we see in Caspian‘s sequel) quell the fairy tales in favor of cold, hard fact; Lewis gives fairy tales prime time.

To Lewis, fairy tales aren’t wishful thinking–they’re whispers of lost reality. They’re echoes in the heart that hearken to a word once spoken but now lost.

The young Lewis felt a thrill as he read Norse fairy tales. He felt the power of those stories, even when he did not understand it.

The adult Lewis came to believe that those stories were true. Not factually accurate, but true portrayals of reality. True tales of spiritual realms, of hearts’ longings, of epic bravery.

Is it surprising that the tales Miraz derides as “nonsense”, a “pack of lies”, and “silly stories” turn out to be true in fact?

Of course not.

For Lewis, fairy tales were the truth, veiled.

The childish wonder at a fairy tale is only one step away from fully mature faith.

Even if Caspian no longer believed those fairy tales to be true, he dreamt that they were. He longed for a reality beyond himself.

It was this longing that made Caspian into the man he became. It was this longing, rooted in his childhood faith, that made him the King he became.

Longing for the fairy tales, once he discovered that they were true, made him into a man worthy of tales.

Chronicles of Narnia Reading Challenge

This post is one part of my investigation of how different characters in Prince Caspian relate to the truth. I am reading Prince Caspian as part of Carrie’s Chronicles of Narnia Reading Challenge. Follow the link to see who else is participating in the challenge–and to read some of their posts.

Categories Book Notes, The Week in Words

WiW: Notes from my readings

1 Comment by

With less than one week before books are due back to the library, I’m in a frenzy trying to get several books finished up. The below is just a sampling of what I’ve been reading.

George W. Bush on the Iraq War prior to the 2006 “Surge”:

“For the first time, I was worried we might not succeed…Ultimately, our enemies could use [Iran’s] sanctuary to attack our homeland. We had to stop that from happening

I made a conscious decision to show resolve, not doubt, in public. I wanted the American people to understand that I believed wholeheartedly in our cause. The Iraqis needed to know we would not abandon them. Our enemies need to know we were determined to defeat them. Most of all, I thought about our troops. I tried to imagine how it would feel to be a twenty-year-old on the front lines, or a military mom worrying about her son or daughter. The last thing they needed to hear was the commander in chief whining about how conflicted he felt. If I had concerns about the direction of the war, I needed to make changes in the policy, not wallow in public.”

~George W. Bush in Decision Points

I’m not a George W. groupie by any stretch of the imagination. I certainly disagree with some (even many) of his policies. But I admire him greatly–and am immensely thankful that he was our leader during the years after 9/11.

Reading Decision Points has cemented my admiration of the 43rd president. Whatever I think about some of his policies, George W. Bush was a leader. He recognized that he could not sit idly by, waiting for someone else to do what he thought needed to be done. He took personal initiative, took personal responsibility, and took the harsh criticism that came with standing as a leader when many would have preferred a figure-head.

Tony Blair on success as an envoy to Palestine:

“The day he left Downing Street, Tony Blair accepted a post as special envoy to help the Palestinians build the institutions of a democratic state. It wasn’t glamorous work, but it was necessary. ‘If I win the Nobel Peace Prize,’ Tony joked, ‘you will know I have failed.”
~George W. Bush in Decision Points

Considering that Palestinian-peace-obstructing Yasser Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994, I’d say Blair is probably right.

Arthur Koestler on American psychology:

“For the anthropomorphic view of the rat, American psychology substituted a rattomorphic view of man.”
~quoted in Alfie Kohn’s Punished by Rewards

Pre-modern animism raised animals to have human (or godlike) attributes. Modern naturalism lowered humans to have merely animal attributes. Yet only Christianity can account for man’s wonderfulness and horridness.

Viola Trigiani on debt:

“There is no such thing as a silent partner. When you owe someone money, they own you.”
~Factory rules related in Adriana Trigiani’s Don’t Sing at the Table

A very Biblical sentiment. “The borrower is the slave of the lender” (Proverbs 22:7).

The Week in WordsDon’t forget to take a look at Barbara H’s meme “The Week in Words”, where bloggers collect quotes they’ve read throughout the week.

Categories Book Notes, Health

Book Review: “Over-diagnosed” by Dr. H Gilbert Welch and others

7 Comments by

A couple years ago, I wrote about my personal weight loss crisis. I’d lost weight and everyone was noticing it and congratulating me. Problem was, I was arguably at a healthier weight pre-loss than I was after losing (since lowest mortality is at a BMI of around 24).

I described how health promotion watchdogs kept lowering the BMI limit for “overweight”, capturing more and more people under the “overweight” term with little evidence that those people were actually at increased risk.

As a result, all sorts of people who were once considered to be at a healthy weight, were now labeled as overweight. And they were told that overweight puts them at risk for diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc. Problem is, the newly diagnosed individuals (with BMIs between the new “overweight” limit and the old one) aren’t necessarily at higher risk. They’re just now being lumped with those who are at higher risk.

These people are the “overdiagnosed”. They receive a diagnosis for a “disease” that has not harmed them and perhaps never will.

Over-diagnosedDoctors H Gilbert Welch, Lisa M. Schwartz, and Steven Woloshin address this problem in their book Over-diagnosed: Making People Sick in the Pursuit of Health.

The authors discuss multiple areas of medicine where the pursuit of early detection of disease has led to people being diagnosed with potential problems that haven’t yet caused them real problems (and maybe never will). Then, once a “disease” has been diagnosed, treatment begins.

If the treatment were only beneficial and had no side effects, this might be fine. Everyone would be undergoing treatment for all of their potential problems and their potential problems would never develop into real problems.

But that isn’t the case. Instead, each of these treatments has a variety of side effects-some quite dangerous. If someone actually has a problem (that is causing them a problem), the positives in increased life expectancy or absence of disease symptoms outweigh the negative side effects. But for the overdiagnosed, the people who are diagnosed with a potential problem that is destined to never become an actual problem, the side effects are the only effects–since they will not be helped by the treatment (for a disease they don’t actually have, or don’t actually have a problem with.)

Packed with good scientific explanations, this book makes a strong case for opting out of unnecessary tests–and for asking more questions prior to beginning treatment.

This is not an anti-medicine book. The authors are all Western medical doctors who believe in evidence-based care. But they question whether the ballooning spate of over-diagnosis is really evidenced-based care or whether it’s fear-based care.

This isn’t the easiest book to read (it can get fairly technical at times), but I think it provides some very important perspective that is rarely offered in today’s medical and health-promotion arenas.

I have read a couple of articles which referenced overdiagnosis recently. The first, regarding mammograms and mastectomies stated the following:

“While scientists did not investigate why mastectomy rates climbed in screened groups, study author Pal Suhrke said the main reason is likely “cancer overdiagnosis,” or the detection and subsequent treatment of tumors that might grow very slowly and not pose much of a risk.”

The second, detailing the results of a physician survey, stated that almost half of all doctors in the US feel that their own patients are overtreated.

Rating: 4 Stars
Category:Consumer Health
Synopsis: The authors describe over-diagnosis and the dangers associated with routinely testing healthy individuals.
Recommendation: The health-savvy consumer will definitely want to read this.

Categories Book Notes

The Argument from Design: Notes from “What’s So Great About Christianity?”

Leave a comment by

The following are chapter synopses and short quotes from the fourth section of Dinesh D’Souza’s What’s So Great About Christianity? This fourth section is entitled: “The Argument from Design”

Chapter 11:
D’Souza argues that the best of modern astronomy (including the Big Bang Theory) is powerful evidence for the God of the Bible, and powerful evidence against atheism.
(This is a topic I am extremely interested in–and I appreciated D’Souza’s comments.)

“In a stunning confirmation of the book of Genesis, modern scientists have discovered that the universe was created in a primordial explosion of energy and light. Not only did the universe have a beginning in space and time, but the origin of the universe was also a beginning for space and time. Space and time did not exist prior to the universe. If you accept that everything that has had a beginning has a cause, then the material universe had a nonmaterial or spiritual cause. This spiritual cause brought the universe into existence using none of the laws of physics. The creation of the universe was, in the quite literal meaning of the term, a miracle. Its creator is known to be a spiritual, eternal being of creativity and power beyond all conceivable limits. Mind, not matter, came at the beginning. With the help of science and logic, all this can be rationally demonstrated.”

Chapter 12:
D’Souza argues from modern science that man has a special place in the universe–a position that is entirely consistent with Christian belief.

“It’s hard to avoid the question: if man is so central to God’s purposes in nature, why do we live in such a marginal speck of real estate in such a big, indifferent universe?…It turns out that the vast size and great age of our universe are not coincidental. They are the indispensable conditions for the existence of life on earth….The entire universe with all its laws appears to be a conspiracy to produce, well, us. Physicists call this incredible finding the anthropic principle….The Copernican narrative has been reversed and man has been restored to his ancient pedestal as the favored son, and perhaps even the raison d’etre, of creation.”

Chapter 13:
D’Souza argues that Christianity and evolution are not incompatible, and that atheists who claim that evolution does away with the need for a God go beyond the limits of the science. (For the record, I find D’Souza’s initial argument weak and his second compelling. D’Souza is convinced that macroevolution is scientifically supported; I am not. Furthermore, D’Souza fails to address the theological argument for special creation of man and the necessity for a true first Adam. On the other hand, I believe D’Souza is right that, even if Christians were to concede on the point of macroevolution, atheism has yet to give a compelling answer for the origin of life, consciousness, and human rationality and morality.)

“It should be clear from all this that the problem is not with evolution. The problem is with Darwinism. Evolution is a scientific theory, Darwinism is a metaphysical stance and a political ideology. In fact, Darwinism is the atheist spin imposed on the theory of evolution.”

Chapter 14:
D’Souza argues that while science is procedurally atheistic, it does not in any way preclude the existence of God–and that today’s militant atheists are incorrect in thinking that science is the only means by which the world can be understood.

“The adversaries of religion…frequently conflate procedural atheism with philosophical atheism. They pretend that because God cannot be discovered through science, God cannot be discovered at all….[A particular atheist that D’Souza quotes] assumes without evidence that scientific knowledge is the only kind of knowledge, and that it gives us true and full access to reality. Are these assumptions valid? …If you were to ask a scientist, ‘why is this water boiling?’ he or she would answer in terms of molecules and temperatures. But there is a second explanation: the water is boiling because I want to have a cup of tea. this second explanation is a perfectly valid description of reality, yet it is ignored or avoided by the scientific account…Science is incapable of answering questions about the nature or purpose of reality.”

Categories Book Notes

Christianity and Science: Notes from “What’s So Great About Christianity?”

2 Comments by

The following are chapter synopses and short quotes from the third section of Dinesh D’Souza’s What’s So Great About Christianity? This third section is entitled: “Christianity and Science”

Chapter 8:
D’Souza argues that Christianity is based on reason–and that Christian theologians throughout the ages have been masters of reasoned defenses of Christian thought.

“My point is that the kind of reasoning about God that we see in Augustine, Aquinas, and Anselm is typical of Christianity. There is very little of this in any other religion. And out of such reasoning, remarkably enough, modern science was born.”

Chapter 9:
D’Souza states that a fundamental assumption of the modern scientist is that the world is ordered, logical, rational, and law following. He argues that this belief in an ordered natural universe is directly pirated from Christianity.

“God is sacred and made the universe, and the universe operates lawfully in accordance with divine reason. At the same time Christianity held that the universe itself is not sacred….The Christian universe is ordered and yet disenchanted. Moreover, Christianity…teaches that man was made in the ‘image’ and ‘likeness’ of God. This means that there is a spark of the divie reason in man, setting him apart from other things and giving him the special power of apprehending them. According to Christianity, human reason is derived from the divine intelligence that created the universe.”

Chapter 10:
D’Souza argues that the story of Galileo being persecuted by the church for his heliocentric theory is just that–a story.

“Galileo was a great scientist who had very little sense. He was right about heliocentrism, but several of his arguments and proofs were wrong. The dispute his ideas brought about was not exclusively between religion and science, but also between the new science and the science of the previous generation. The leading figures of the church were more circumspect about approaching “

Categories Book Notes

Christianity and the West: Notes from “What’s So Great About Christianity?”

Leave a comment by

The following are chapter synopses and short quotes from the second section of Dinesh D’Souza’s What’s So Great About Christianity? This second section was entitled: “Christianity and the West”

Chapter 5:
D’Souza argues that Christianity is originally responsible for the concept of limited government and separation of church and state

“Augustine argued that during our time here on earth, the Christian inhabits two realms, the earthly city and the heavenly city….To each of these realms the Christian citizen has duties, but they are not the same duties….some remarkable conclusions follow….It means that the earthly city need not concern itself with the question of man’s final or ultimate destiny. It also implies that the claims of the earthly city are limited, that there is a sanctuary of conscience inside every person that is protected from political control.”

Chapter 6:
D’Souza argues that Christianity’s conception of the value of the ordinary but fallible individual has led to many of the features of Western civilization that we hold most dear, including separation of powers and checks and balances for governments, and capitalism as an economic system. (He also argues that the value of the ordinary but fallible individual led to giving family a prominent role in society, but I felt that his argument was hard to follow and rather weak.)

“…Capitalism satisfied the Christian demand for an institution that channels selfish human desire toward the betterment of society. Some critics accuse capitalism of being a selfish system, but the selfishness is not in capitalism–it is in human nature.”

Chapter 7:
D’Souza argues that Christianity is fundamentally responsible for the concepts of human rights and individual freedom.

“The preciousness and equal worth of every human life is a Christian idea. Christians have always believed that God places infinite value on each human life He creates and that He loves each person equally. In Christianity you are not saved through your family or tribe or city. Salvation is an individual matter…These ideas have momentous consequences.”

Categories Book Notes

The Future of Christianity: Notes from “What’s So Great About Christianity?”)

4 Comments by

I’m cheating somewhat and just using my book notes from What’s So Great About Christianity? for this week’s Week in Words.

The following are chapter synopses and short quotes from the first section of Dinesh D’Souza’s What’s So Great About Christianity? This first section was entitled: “The Future of Christianity”

Chapter 1:
D’Souza argues that Christianity is experiencing worldwide growth, while atheism is declining worldwide.

“Nietzsche’s proclamation “God is dead” is now proven false. Nietzsche is dead. The ranks of unbelievers are shrinking as a proportion of the world’s population….God is very much alive , and His future prospects look to be excellent.”

Chapter 2:
D’Souza argues that, while atheists search for an evolutionary reason for religion, it is really atheism that lacks an evolutionary basis. After all, the religious are rapidly reproducing their genes while atheists fail to (biologically) reproduce.

“The important point is not just that atheism is unable to compete with religion in attracting followers, but also that the lifestyle of practical atheism seems to produce listless tribes that cannot even reproduce themselves.”

Chapter 3:
D’Souza describes the rise of militant atheism and its desperately offensive (think Hail Mary) “war on religion”.

Chapter 4:
D’Souza argues that atheists attempt to use schools (both primary schools and universities) to indoctrinate children and young adults to atheist ideology.

“For the defenders of Darwinism, no less than for its critics, religion is the issue. Just as some people oppose the theory of evolution because they believe it to be anti-religious, many others support it for the very same reason. This is why we have Darwinism but not Keplerism; we encounter Darwinists but no one describes himself as an Einstainian. Darwinism has become an ideology.”

The Week in WordsDon’t forget to take a look at Barbara H’s meme “The Week in Words”, where bloggers collect quotes they’ve read throughout the week.

Categories Book Notes

What You Meant

4 Comments by

*Spoiler alert: If you haven’t read A Horse and His Boy, this post gives away almost EVERYTHING.*

A fellow heard the prophecy regarding how the baby Cor would one day save Archenland. Desiring the downfall of Archenland, he purposed in his heart to thwart the prophesied end.

His purposes seemed to be accomplished when Cor, now known as Shasta, grew up doing menial labor in the house of an uneducated Calormene fisherman, completely unaware of Archenland and unconcerned with its fate.

But what the fellow meant for evil, Aslan meant for good. His evil action only set the stage for Aslan’s great plan–the prophesied deliverance.

A Tarkaan saw the boy working hard in the fisherman’s tent. Desiring a slave with whom he could do whatever he wished, he purposed in his heart to buy the teenaged Shasta.

His purposes seemed to be accomplished when the fisherman begins to barter, selling away his “son” for a few crescents.

But what the Tarkaan meant for evil, Aslan meant for good. The Tarkaan’s evil intentions only gave the impetus for Shasta to begin his flight.

A stepmother sees her step-daughter and hates her. Desiring to have away with her, she purposed in her heart to marry the girl off.

Her purposes seem to be accomplished when the engagement goes through and the girl leaves her home.

But what the stepmother meant for evil, Aslan meant for good. The stepmother’s evil intentions only made a way for Aravis and Shasta to meet, and to become traveling companions.

Dozens of characters, each with their own purposes. The pleasure-seeking Lasaraleen. The lust-driven Rabadash. The conquest-happy Tisroc. The favor-currying Vizier. Even Shasta and Aravis have their own selfish motivations.

Evil actors seem to drive the story to its deadly end.

But all the evil actors, however much evil they meant, had no power against the purposes of the main Actor.

Each actor is a free agent, acting according to the intents of his own heart–and it seems that every actor’s intents are evil. Even the “good” choices were often made with poor intentions: pride, self-preservation, shame. Every bad choice is fully the actor’s responsibility. He clearly chose, of the evil in his own heart, to act as he did.

Yet every evil perpetuated out of the evil in man’s heart was turned into good by the sovereign hand of Aslan.

Conversely, any good that any actor did was not out of the good in his own heart (as though he had good in his heart out of which to act), but was generally the result of the direct hand of Aslan–the Lion at their heels, driving them wherever He willed, compelling them to ride faster than they thought themselves capable of riding.

As such, no actor deserves glory for his good actions; each actor only deserves punishment for his evil.

Yet Aslan, in His mercy, withheld just punishment from many who did evil–and justly received glory for every good deed.

“But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive.”
~Genesis 50:20

Chronicles of Narnia Reading Challenge
This post is yet another collection of notes from my reading of The Horse and His Boy for Carrie’s Chronicles of Narnia Reading Challenge.

Categories Book Notes, Books

Appointed Times and Places

2 Comments by

*Spoiler alert: If you haven’t read A Horse and His Boy, this post will give away quite a bit.*

While Shasta dreams of Northern lands, a Tarkahn rides up from the South on a Narnian stallion.

While Bree (the horse) talks of being a free horse among his own people, a roar out of the darkness leads him to cross paths with one of his own people–another captive horse dreaming of freedom.

When Shasta’s only wish is to avoid notice, he is taken to be the missing Prince of Archenland–and overhears the Narnian nobles’ plans to sail out of Calormen unnoticed.

When Aravis is only trying to sneak quietly out of a planned marriage to an obsequious toad, she finds herself sandwiched behind a couch, hearing the councils of the Tisroc, the Prince, and said Toad.

Time and time again, the characters of The Horse and His Boy find themselves in just the right place at just the right time.

Not that they always thought the times and places were right.

Shasta didn’t think so when he served practically as a slave in the fisherman’s hut.

Bree didn’t think so when terror of a lion caused Hwin and him to travel the same path.

Aravis didn’t think so when she came within an inch of discovery.

These were frightening experiences, exhausting experiencing–things they wish they’d never have had to go through.

But an unseen breath propelled Shasta’s boat across the sea to Arsheesh’s hut. An unseen hand guided the meetings of Shasta and the Narnian nobles, of Aravis and the Tarkheenah. An unseen hand hid them behind the couch as they overheard the Tisroc’s council.

All throughout their groping journey, it seemed as though Someone had gone on before, marking out their appointed times and the boundaries of their lands.

Someone was giving life to their bodies, purpose to their movements, reason for their being.

“From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us; for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.'”
~Acts 17:26-28

Chronicles of Narnia Reading Challenge
This post is yet another collection of notes from my reading of The Horse and His Boy for Carrie’s Chronicles of Narnia Reading Challenge.