Maori Essay Example for Free

Maori Essay Maori According to the Maori people, they came in the Great Fleet from their homeland, Hawaiki. Most historians believe that they have Polynesian and Melanesian blood and they migrated to New Zealand from their ancestral homes in New Guinea and South East Asian countries. The historians also believe that the people of the Maori culture migrated from one Pacific island to another before reaching New Zealand. This gives them some cultural features from the different islands of the pacific, especially Polynesia and Melanesia. Their culture diffused through migration, relocation diffusion, of the tribe. The Maori people form many tribes. Maori is the term used to describe the people of Aotearoa, and they are divided into a bunch of different tribes. A good comparison of the Maori tribes is the Moriori people of Chatham Island, which is close to New Zealand. The Moriori people are similar to the Maori people in many ways. The first is their arrival to the place they call home by canoes. Another similarity is that the Moriori and Maori people both lost many through war with other tribes. Since the Moriori were isolated from mainland New Zealand, they developed different customs like Nunukus Law which was a law that banned any kind of blood shedding. People who are part of the western culture are imposing their beliefs and traditions on the Maori people. As New Zealand became increasingly westernized, things like clothing deans) are started to be worn by the Maori people. Also, Maori tribes are becoming more and more involved in going to university and working offices in cities. Government policies have also been forcing them to sacrifice some of their language and traditions, and forcing them to follow the culture of the majority.

Witchcraft Essay Example for Free

Witchcraft Essay (Many of the people who were persecuted as witches from the fifteenth to seventeenth centuries were those of a seemingly inferior mindset, those who are blamed for problems in the community and those who were social outcasts. ) This time period occurred throughout the Protestant, Catholic and Scientific revolutions. The victims of the witch trials were usually persecuted in Europe as a whole however focused on areas like South Western Europe. Witches were usually people who were considered inferior due to physical appearances like women and the elderly. In Document 2 of Group D, over 75% of the executions that were analyzed were female which fits into the perspective of society starting in the early days of the church. Many women were seen as sinners since it was technically Eve, the first woman who committed the first sin. In this sense, women were forever branded as a dwelling place for a devil that can easily affect those around them as described by Kramer and Sprenger who wrote The Hammer of Witches which was a handbook used during the Inquisition by Dominican monks in Document 1 of Group B. It stated in the book that females are part of a fragile sex branded for their physical appearance and considered to be easily deceived by satanic influences. Out of the singled out group of women, those who were very elderly were often considered witches since their actual age was a phenomenon. In those day, the average age expectancy was much lower and those who were seen to have surpassed those year were often accused of being witches. In Document group D, the 3rd Document, a majority of the suspected witches were over the age of 50. W.  Fulbecke stated in Document 1 of Group C that â€Å"bodies of aged person are impure† that can easily taken over and spread diseases, he decided that this is a statement was a legit reason to believe the elderly were witches. Due to the stereotypical assumptions made about women and elderly people it was very hard for people to believe otherwise. In Group C, Document 2 it shows a more pragmatic view of women and the elderly through the eyes of a doctor name Johan Wler. Wler believed that rather being messengers from the devil, they are instead affected by metal illnesses that made them believe their delusions. Some people like Thomas Ady who witnesses a man refusing to help an elderly, refers to the elderly in Document 3 of Group A as â€Å"poor innocent neighbour† showing that some people out of the majority still questioned the validation of the accusations. Although there are few who didn’t fall for the common stereotype of women and elderly people being witches, majority ruled and unfortunately many had to suffer for it. Another group of people that were treated unfairly were those who were blamed for problems in the community. In Document 5 of Group A a poem called â€Å"The Witch of Edmonton† explains a scenario of a reason to use as an accusation. Even if you are not guilty, they â€Å"enforce† the name upon you and it was a long process until the named â€Å"redemption†. Due to the influence of huge Religious figures like Pope Innocent VIII mentioned in Group B, Document 6 that it’s the duty of the population to correct the wrongs by using the Inquisition. At this point in history, the Church worked hard to keep unified and anyone who tried to get in the way were punished. The easiest punishment was through the Inquisition. Everyone feared being tortured for a false confession and then burned like Walpuga Hausmannin did in Document 1 of Group A. Hausmannin was a midwife who was involved with the deaths of many children as is normal in her line of work. Since so many unfortunate events had occurred, she was burned at the stake. Since there wasn’t much care for accusations made against the accused, all of Europe seemed to be in a frenzy. The diary of a young Protestant boy, as seen in Document 5 of Group B, showed a state of confusion and because of the instability of communities. No matter where a person turned, Hell would be right there as well despite the Church’s useless efforts. The state of chaos Europe was in was only hurt by the constant blame of the innocent people in the community. Those who were considered social outcasts like peasants, old people and even disliked officials were targeted through the reformation. In Document Group D, number 1, a chart of the occupations of all the husbands of the women who were accused of witchcraft. This chart showed that nearly all of the wealth standings were either laborers or farmers yet hardly any upperclassmen had to deal with such accusations. Not only were those who were poor but those who were non-religious were also attack. In those days, those who tried to spread a different faith or did not believe at all were heretics that were also attacked. In Document 6 of Group A, the brother of a Chief Justice points out a certain judge that believed in witches and immediately went into detail that he is the cause of much of the troubles by not handing the woman from the trial to the Inquisition attendants. Such decisions are looked down upon and immediate draw attraction to the person who does not become involved with the Inquisition. Not only were those who were considered peasants persecuted but those who lost favor with the population. According to Document Group A, the 7th document is a letter of a mayor to his daughter. He retells the story of an executioner telling him to confess to what he was innocent for there would only be, â€Å"one torture will follow another until you say you are a witch ,†. Given no other option, the mayor is then executed as many thousands of others are as well. Being different in such a radical time period meant being an enemy, one that would be persecuted until the powerful were strong and satisfied. The witch hunt’s would eventually become part of the Church’s dark history. However this history didn’t just end with the Church, it spread far and wide. One such place was Salem, Massachusetts and then later in history become an example for the Red Scare. The insecurity and chaos of untruthful and misleading leaders and influences can play a heavy toll. It can tear nations apart and rather than becoming more unified it became more disorderly. Towns and cities became depopulated and there was also an opening for true logical reasoning to come about. This reasoning will eventually turn into regulation of trials and torture in order to stop false executions, much like the judicial system does today.

Todays Society Vs Ideal Society Sociology Essay

Todays Society Vs Ideal Society Sociology Essay In The Communist Manifesto, the authors Karl Marx and Engels feels that this capitalism with the help of industrialization is the increasing the productivity of economy way beyond expected. This is the main reason for class struggle where the oppressor rule and ruin the oppressed class. In short Capitalism has turned out to be a money making system in which rich people own private properties and to stay in the market, they distribute it according to the growing competition amongst themselves. Capital is therefore not personal, it is social, power(Marx and Engels 24). On the other, Thomas Mores Utopia is completely a different society called as an ideal society where people do not run their business for sake of profit but still live a peaceful life. The reason for peaceful and happiness in their life is unity and public ownership which solves the main social problems such as poverty and inequality. The political laws, religious principles and social issues are development in such a ma nner that it benefits not a single individual but the complete utopian society. Not only throughout the history but also in todays society money is consider as a key to success and people think that power and fame along with the rise our their wealth. In the Communist Manifesto, the authors Marx and Engels point out that rise of capital as the main source of class struggle. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other Bourgeoisie and Proletariat (Marx and Engels 9). The Proletariats are the low working class society that live on the labor power and do not make any profit but rather work under Bourgeoisie to produce goods for the society. On the other hand Bourgeoisies are upper class people that own private properties and business that make profit by exploiting the Proletariats. A business can only make profit when the income of capital is more than the outcome or the expense. This is possible by making the labor class, work more and pay them less. The average price of wage-labor is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the labor in bare existence as a laborer (Marx and Engels 24). T his leaves labor with no choice, but to work under the upper class for their daily living. The authors believe that this upper class people should focus more on the improvement of their labors living, as they are their sole mode to earn profit. The class struggle has still not ended, in fact the rich are becoming richer and poor becoming poorer and wealth is the one responsible for this status. The case in Thomas Mores Utopia is different. He has made up a destination named Utopia which is known for the ideal society, a perfect and a social life where there is no competition among the people. This is complete different society which has different principles which treats everyone equally and more importantly, no one owns any property by himself. Agriculture is the main occupation and each family is given a piece of land. One of the principles that is different from todays time is that Utopian family has head of household that takes the things needed without any exchange for money or direct goods. Certainly fear of want makes all kind of animal greedy and rapacious, but only mankind is made so by pride, which makes them consider their own glory enhanced if they excel others in displaying superfluous possession, and in Utopia there is no place for such thinking. If everyone begins to think in such a manner, than there are chances that we could gain freedom from class struggle and achieve unity. The Utopian laws are very fair to people because every decision is taken for the benefits of the complete society. However, some of these laws are illogical and hard on people. For example, the son must have same trade as his father. But if anyone is drawn to another occupation, he is transferred by adoption into another household where he can work at the trade he wants to pursue. This breaks the bond a child has with his family just to achieve different trade. However, after mastering both the trades, he gets to practice whichever he wants until and unless there is higher demand of the other trade in the city. Moreover, he works for the trade which benefits the society as a whole and not himself as an individual. The education in Utopian society is not mandatory and very few people are allowed to leave their labor work for education. They also believe that value of life is gained through education for which every child is given complete education. It is interesting to find that alth ough the Utopians have labor work as their main career; most of this people are seen doing intellectual studies in their free time. In todays time, the education system is in danger and needs to be rescued from the influence of the ruling class (***). This upper people, with the influence of Modern Industry, are affecting the education of children of working labor class. This leads to transformation of their children to simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor (***). Nowadays there are some countries which has public schools providing free education to children. Utopia is titled as communist state not only by critics but also by the authors of The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels. After reading the text, we find Utopia as communist state. It is mentioned in the Manifesto that profit and competition is damaging the importance of the community: The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ has left no other bond between man and man than naked self interest, than callous cash paymentà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ has resolved personal worth into exchange value à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ and has set up that single, unconscionable freedom Free Trade (11). Similarly, in Utopia, Hythloday quotes that wherever there is property, everything is in the terms of wealth and profit. He further tells that it is hard for the common people to gain justice until justice is served when all the best thing go to the worst people or that happiness is possible when everything shared among themselves who are not entirely happy, while the rest are plunged into misery (46). However, some communist nations share few differences with Utopia in terms of religion. We know that religion exist in Utopia and has similar believe like other religions i.e., there is only one God but might have different nature. Whereas the communist nations like China and Russia are among the top atheist country where 59% and 22% of the population respectively, doesnt believe in God and follow no religion (Atheist). We know also that in Utopia people do not own any money or property whereas in China official misuse power of their position to gain wealth for personal benefit. The text by Thomas More, Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels shows that there could be two possible societies, an ideal society, i.e., Utopian Society, where everything works with perfection and money has no value and the other society would be our present society, which is divided into upper class and working class based on wealth. People are considering money as the sole source of happiness. This thinking of ours is ruining many lives each year. Although the unfair treatment such as inequality, labor wage, and class struggle had started off in the beginning of Capitalism, still continuing and seems to be an endless one. Todays society detracts the attraction of being youthful by forcing work onto people in order to succeed. It is unjust to the workers who contribute the most to the society and receive very less in return. We must put an end to private ownership and encourage public ownership. In public ownership people dont own anything and poverty doesnt exist. However, people have a gu arantees life of happiness and stability. Work Cited Marx, Karl, and Frederick Engels.  The Communist Manifesto. New York: International Publisher, 2012. Print.

The North Cascades :: essays research papers fc

The North Cascades   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The North Cascades became a national park on October 2, 1968. It is located in the north central area of Washington. Since it’s inception the park’s mission statement has evolved to include concerns of the entire ecosystem. (www.seattleinsider.com) When you go to the North Cascades in Washington, you can visit and do a variety of things. Some major tourist attractions are the beautiful ice sculpted, jagged mountains, which rise above deep-forested valleys-terrain carved by moving ice. The Park Complex contains more glaciers than any other national park in the United States outside Alaska. These glaciers are an important source of water for salmon, other wildlife, plants, and people in the Puget Sound region. The cascading waters, which provide a large and expanding nearby population with a wide variety of recreational opportunities, from boating and camping to climbing and backpacking. The vast wildlife also is a major attraction because it is the co re of one of the largest protected wild areas in the United States and is a substantial portion of it is designated wilderness. Humans here are visitors, who come to enjoy nature on nature's terms. The park provides a habitat for one of the greatest diversities of plant life in North America including rare and sensitive species. Some wildlife that live here are a variety of fish, deer, moose, geese, all kinds of birds, horses, bald eagles, wolves, grizzly bears, mountain lions, mountain goats and black bears. Ancient forest holds millions of living organisms and thousands of diverse life forms. The history of the park in general is also a tourist attraction for the park its was after all home to at least 4 tribes whose descendants now live nearby and includes, within its boundaries, three contemporary communities. (www.northcascades.net)   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The park and its breathtaking features attract 400, 000 visitors per year. The highest visitation time is usually in August and the lowest is in January. When visitors are here they can do the following: go backcountry camping, hiking, mountain climbing, fishing, horseback riding, wildlife and bird watching, scenery viewing, boating. Facilities include hiking trails, horse rentals nearby, small boat rentals, and professional guide, climbing, pack train services.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  It has been stated that there have been no known fires or floods that have occurred in this area. The wildlife and vegetation is basically the same as it is now. (www.nps.gov)   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Some educational programs offered at the North Cascades National Park are: field seminars, retreats, graduate programs, teacher workshops, volunteer service learning, skagit watershed education project, and the Northwest Mountain School which is a school for mountaineering, rock climbing, backpacking and more.

The Presence and Justification of Autoeroticism in The Rocking-Horse Wi

D.H. Lawrence’s writings often mirror elements of his own life, though they contain decidedly fictitious components. The characters in Lawrence’s The Rocking- Horse Winner closely resemble his own family. Like Paul, Lawrence was seeking a way out of the misfortune of pre-war London living. Unlike Lawrence, Paul is already well-to-do. Paul’s search consists of a yearning for affection and acceptance. In The Rocking-Horse Winner a young boy finds a certain calling within himself that serves to vastly improve the standing of his entire family. However, Paul’s supernatural ability to choose the winners of horse races is but a cursory assessment of the story’s secrets. Digging deeper, the reader becomes aware of a darker meaning to Paul’s wild rides. There are two things are revealed throughout Paul’s character development; first, that he is seeking his mother’s affection. Secondly, in doing so, there is an apparent autoeroticis m linked to his seemingly innocent rocking-horse. Chief in the comprehension of Paul’s longing for motherly affection is having an understanding of Paul’s mother. She is generally a detached woman. Cold by most accounts, even her own, â€Å"only she herself [knows] that at the center of her heart [is] a hard little place that [can] not feel love, no, not for anybody† (Lawrence, 559). Paul’s mother feels the three children are a burden on an already cash strapped and unfulfilling relationship with her husband. Therefore, she is phony and removed where they are concerned. â€Å"She [has] bonny children, yet she [feels] they [have] been thrust upon her, and she [can] not love them [†¦] when her children [are] present, she always [feels] the center of her heart go hard† (Lawrence, 559). Symptoms of post-partum depr... ...nt Psychology: Individual Bases of Adolescent Development. Ed. Richard M. Lerner and Laurence D. Steinber. 3rd ed. Vol. 1. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2009. 576-81. Print Gioia, Dana. "The Rocking-Horse Winner." Literature: An Introduction to Fiction, Poetry, Drama, and Writing. By X. J. Kennedy. 11th ed. New York: Pearson Longman, 2010. 556-63. Print. Isaacs, Neil D. â€Å"The Autoerotic Metaphor in Joyce, Sterne, Lawrence, Stevens, and Whitman.† Literature and Psychology. 15th ed. 1965. 98-102. Print. Kazdin, Alan E. "Oedipus Complex." Encyclopedia of Psychology. Vol. 5. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 2000. 494-96. Print. Lamson, Roy, et al., eds. â€Å"Critical Analysis of ‘The Rocking-Horse Winner.’† The Critical Reader. Rev. ed. New York: Norton, 1962. 52-6. Print. Widmer, Kingsley. The Art of Perversity. Seattle: Washington UP, 1962. Print.

Television Programs: How They Affect Society :: essays research papers

Television Programs: How It Affects Society   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã¢â‚¬Å"It was an accident,† proclaimed Janet Jackson after her Super Bowl fiasco, â€Å"a wardrobe malfunction.† It didn’t appear to be one to the millions of people who witnessed the exposing of one of Jackson’s breasts. Many were shocked and outraged, but this type of thing isn’t new for the infamous â€Å"boob tube†. In 1977, the miniseries â€Å"Roots†, was the first TV show to air bare breasts (Clark 1070). Even still, television programs have come a long way since that and the time of their creation.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Invented in 1923, television programs started off with airing sporting events, news hours, and cookie cutter programs (â€Å"History of TV† History). These programs usually taught morals and lessons at their closings and gave a false sense of reality. Today, you can see just about anything on TV, from someone being gunned down to wild and risk-free sex between couples (Gay couples too!). Studies have been done to see if these scenes seen by society can affect us negatively, as children have been analyzed through adulthood to see if violent and sexual behavior on TV has affected them badly. The results are children starting to deal with adult issues at an early age due to the graphic nature of television programs. Society now is more aggressive and losing it’s values. With this said, television programs have clearly evolved since 1923 and affected society negatively due to it’s violent and sexual content.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Since it’s start television has grown in availability and reached the living rooms of many. Television’s expansion started off slow due to the Depression and World War II. By the end of World War II, TV was certain to grow as fast as the radio had twenty years prior (Jost 1139). Television has also developed better technology as it is now shown in color with digital picturing. This started towards the late 1930's, when new technology was being used to show baseball games and special events (Jost 1138).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  With the rise in technology companies have come up with a new system, interactive television. â€Å"With digital interactivity, consumers are in total control of the programming they bring into their homes,† declared Time Warner Chairman Gerald Levin on interactive television (qtd. in Jost 1131). I have witnessed firsthand, interactive TV as my cable company, Comcast, offers something similar called On Demand TV. With it I can choose movies or shows I want to watch.

Miracles and Science Essay

1. Introduction: Miracles as violations of the laws of nature Unbelievable, isn’t it, that there are still students at this university who believe in stories from the Bible, said Martin, an older colleague, at one of the formal dinners around which the traditional life of Oxford University revolves. But Martin, I answered, their faith probably doesn’t differ much from mine. I can still see his face go pale while he nearly choked on his glass of St. Emilion Grand Cru Classà ©: How can you believe in such things nowadays – Walking on water, a resurrection from the dead? Those are miracles, and aren’t you a scientist? Oh, how interesting, say John and Ruth, a couple that I have just met at the end of a church service. You are a scientist. They look a bit unsure of what to say next and John blurts out, I read recently that we still don’t understand how birds can fly so many miles to the south and yet return to exactly the same place each summer. Scientists can’t explain this; it is a miracle, don’t you think? I never quite know what to say next in such conversations. Perhaps nine years of living in Britain have made me too sensitive to that most cardinal of English social sins – causing embarrassment. But there is more to it than that. Behind these statements lies a tangle of complex intellectual issues related to the definition and scope of science, the nature of God’s action in the world, and the reliability and interpretation of the Bible. These have exercised many of greatest minds in history: The debate between atheism and religious belief has gone on for centuries, and just about every aspect of it has been explored to the point where even philosophers seem bored with it. The outcome is stalemate. 1 So says my Oxford colleague Alister McGrath. Although these subtleties are well known to philosophers and historians of  science, public discourse on science and religion often seems blissfully unaware of them. 2 Everyone brings a set of presuppositions to the table. To make progress, these should first be brought out into the open. Without time for an honest conversation in which we can listen to each other in depth, I won’t know exactly what Martin, John, or Ruth’s presuppositions are. But, for the sake of this essay, I will be a bit presumptuous and venture a guess. My guess would be that, although both seem to be on opposite sides of a vast divide, they are in fact influenced by a similar perspective on science and miracles, one first laid down by the great sceptical Scottish philosopher David Hume, who wrote: A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature, and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. This language of â€Å"miracles as violations of the laws of nature† has framed the debate ever since. Martin, John and Ruth, perhaps without realizing it, are living under the long shadow of David Hume. Martin may think that science is the only reliable route to gaining knowledge about the world, and that, since belief in miracles is obviously unscientific, such belief must ipso facto be false. John and Ruth may feel a similar tension between science and miracles, and are therefore encouraged by any natural process that seems inexplicable. Weakening the power of science would seem to strengthen the case for God acting in the world: If we know that today God miraculously steers a bird back to its original habitat after a long return flight to the south, then it is easier to believe that 2000 years ago he turned water into wine at a wedding in Cana. Now, as a Christian scientist who believes in the miracles of the Bible, I take issue with both of the views above. But to explain this better, I need to first take a step back and answer two critical questions: What do I mean by science, and what does  the Bible say about miracles? 2. Defining Science The problem of deciding where to draw the lines around science has vexed generations of philosophers. Like many unsolved issues, it has been given its own name—â€Å"the demarcation problem.† Although one can determine with some degree of consensus what the extremes of the science/non-science continuum are, exactly where the boundary lies is fuzzy. This doesn’t mean, however, that we cannot recognize science when we see it4, but rather that a watertight definition is difficult to create. The old fashioned idea (still taught in many schools) that scientific practice follows a well-defined linear process—first make an observation, then state a hypothesis, and then test that hypothesis—is certainly far too simple. Science as a tapestry Rather than attempt to come up with a careful and precise definition of science or scientific practice, I will instead resort to a favorite metaphor of mine. It originates with one of my former teachers at Cornell, the p hysicist David Mermin, who describes science as a â€Å"tapestry† woven together from many threads (experimental results, interpretations, explanations, etc.).5 It is only when one examines the tapestry as a whole that it will (or will not) make a convincing pattern. Creating scientific tapestries is a collective endeavor building on mutual trust and the communal experience of what kinds of arguments and evidence are likely to stand the test of time. In part because the skill of weaving reliable scientific tapestries relies on subtle judgements, a young scientist may work for years as an apprentice of older and more experienced practitioners before branching out on his own. In this process there are many parallels with the guilds of old. I am fond of this metaphor because it describes what I think I experience from the inside as a scientist. Moreover, it also emphasizes the importance of coherence and consistency when I weave together arguments and data to make an â€Å"inference to a best explanation.†6 The strong communal element inherent in scientific practice has at times been seized upon by sociologists of science to argue that s cientific knowledge is just one more type of human construct with no greater  claim on reality than any other form of knowledge. But scientists as a whole have reacted to this proposition in a negative way.7 Although they agree that all kinds of economic, historical and social factors do play a role in the formation of scientific theories, they would argue that, in the long run, the scientific process does lead to reliable knowledge about the world. The view of nature embraced by most scientists that I know could be described as critical realism. They are realists because they believe that there is a world out there that is independent of our making. The adjective â€Å"critical† is added because they recognize that extracting knowledge about that world is not always straightforward. Thus, the primary role of the collective nature of the scientific process is to provide a network of error-correcting mechanisms that prevent us from fooling ourselves. The continual testing against nature refines and filters out competing scientific theories, leading to advances in the strength and reliability of our scien tific knowledge tapestries. Although there are many commonalities in the ways that scientists in distinct fields assemble their tapestry arguments, there can also be subtle differences. These differences are foisted on us in part by the types of problems that each field attempts to address. For example, as a theoretical physicist I’ve been trained in a tradition of what the Nobel Laureate Eugene Wigner called â€Å"the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics:† The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning.8 We believe, based on a history of spectacular success, that mathematical consistency among threads is a key indicator of strong tapestries.9 These days, I spend much of my time interacting with biologists who tend to view my confidence  in the ability of theoretical models to extract knowledge about the physical world with great suspicion.10 I, on the other hand, am often instinctively sceptical of the huge error bars that can afflict their data.11 To a large degree, these cultural differences are forced on us by the kinds of questions we study. My reaction above arises because physics is self-limiting. As a community we simply don’t deal with problems of the same level of complexity that biology does. If an experiment is too messy we will often define it away by declaring â€Å"that isn’t physics,† and move on. Similarly, molecular biologists can afford to be more selective about their data than medical scientists or psychologists can.12 But, despite these cultural differences, which can lead to heated and sometimes frustrating discussion, we do agree on a number of ground rules for defining what makes a tapestry strong. For example, what we either predict or measure should be repeatable. If I claim to see an effect in an experiment, someone else in a different lab should be able to reliably measure the same effect.13 That simple requirement has many ramifications for the types of problems we are able to address The limits of science There are many questions that simply are not amenable to purely scientific analysis. A very lucid discussion of this issue can be found in the book The Limits of Science by Nobel Prize winner (and atheist) Sir Peter Medawar, who wrote: That there is indeed a limit upon science is made very likely by the existence of questions that science cannot answer and that no conceivable advance of science would empower it to answer†¦ It is not to science, therefore but to metaphysics, imaginative literature or religion that we must turn for answers to questions having to do with first and last things. and Science is a great and glorious enterprise – the most successful, I argue, that human beings have ever engaged in. To reproach it for its inability to answer all the questions we should like to put to it is no more sensible than to reproach a railway locomotive for not flying or, in general, not performing any other operation for which it was not designed.14 Science’s great power derives from its self-imposed limits. It is wrong to ask it to pronounce on issues outside its jurisdiction. In fact, the most important decisions in life cannot be addressed solely by the scientific method, nor do people really live as if they can. In the words of Sir John Polkinghorne, former professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge and Anglican priest: We are entitled to require a consistency between what people write in their studies and the way in which they live their lives. I submit that no-one lives as if science were enough. Our account of the world must be rich enough – have a thick enough texture and a sufficiently generous rationality – to contain the total spectrum of human meeting with reality. But just because we don’t live life by the scientific method doesn’t mean that the only alternative is irrationality. For example, if I were to decide to get married, a truly irrational approach would be to pick a random woman off the street. Instead, assuming I find a potentially willing partner, it is wise to go through a period of courtship during which we get to know each other. We may also ask for the opinion of wise friends. There are helpful counseling programs with compatibility lists, etc. that, in fact, often use knowledge that scientific techniques have extracted from our collective experience and wisdom. But at the end of the day I can’t demand scientific certainty before deciding to marry someone. Nor is it wise to perform repeatable experiments! I need to make a volitional step because there are aspects of marriage that I can only see from the inside.15 Another example of a method used to obtain knowledge is the legal process which, although it is a tightly organized system, is not strictly scientific. Similarly, a historian will use a combination of evidence (e.g. manuscripts) and understanding about the thinking patterns of a particular era to make informed judgements about what happened in the past. Clearly, this big question of how to extract reliable  information about the world, how to separate fact from mere opinion, is indeed a very difficult and important one. 3. Miracles and the Bible How can we then judge whether or not the miracles of the Bible are reliable? Since the word miracle has taken on so many different meanings, it is important to first examine the biblical language. The New Testament predominantly uses three words for miracle: ï‚ ·teras, a wonder ï‚ ·dunamis, an act of power ï‚ ·semeion, a sign Sometimes it combines all three, as in Acts 2:22: Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles (dunamis), wonders (teras) and signs (semeion), which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. The word teras (wonder) is almost always used together with one of the other words, emphasizing that the main point of biblical miracles is not to merely elicit amazement but rather to serve a higher theological purpose. For this reason, biblical miracles cannot be understood outside of the theological context within which they occur. They are not anomalous events. This principle provides a key to the proper assessment of their validity. Nature is what God does Miracles happen against a backdrop. In this context, it is illuminating to see how the Bible describes God’s action in the natural world. For example in Psalm 104, that great poem about nature, we read, He makes springs pour water into the ravines, it flows between the mountains The first part of this verse refers to God’s direct action while the second part suggests that water flows through its own natural properties. Read the Psalm for yourself and notice how fluidly the point of view changes back and forth between what we might call the laws of nature and the direct action of God. Such dual descriptions can be found throughout the Bible. The New Testament is even more explicit: The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. (Hebrews 1:3)  and He is before all things, and in him all th ings hold together (Col 1:17) In other words, if God were to stop sustaining all things by his powerful word, the world would stop existing. That is why, when describing nature, the Bible so easily switches perspectives depending on whether it is emphasizing the regular behavior of natural phenomena, or their origin in God’s providential sustenance. So, as St. Augustine might say, Nature is what [God] does.16 Augustine doesn’t mean that nature is the same as God (pantheism), for, as he also argued, God operates outside of space and time. Nevertheless, and this is a very subtle point, 17 a case can be made for ascribing some independent causal power to the laws of nature. On the other hand, there is no room within a robust biblical theism for the opposite deistic notion that God started the world and then left it to run on its own, completely independently, because descriptions of God’s continuous care for creation are found throughout Scripture: Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. (Matthew 10:29,30) As Christian thinkers throughout the Middle Ages wrestled with the questions of miracles and God’s action in the world, the following ideas emerged: if the regularities of nature are a manifestation of the sustenance of God then one would expect them to be trustworthy and consistent, rather than capricious. The regular behavior of nature could be viewed as the â€Å"customs of the Creator† as it were. Christians glorify God by studying these â€Å"laws of nature.† A strong case can be made that such theological realizations helped pave the way for the rise of modern science.18 By the time the Royal Society of London, the world’s first scientific society, was founded in 1660, Christian thinkers like the metaphysical poet John Donne, then dean of St. Paul’s Cathedral in London, could write: the ordinary things in Nature, would be greater miracles than the extraordinary, which we  admire most, if they were done but once†¦ only the daily doing takes off the admiration.19 God of the gaps A similar sentiment lies behind a famous exchange between those old adversaries, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and Sir Isaac Newton. The latter noticed that the orbits of the planets did not appear to be stable when calculated over long periods, and postulated that the solar system needed occasional â€Å"reformation† by God. Leibniz objected that,  if God had to remedy the defects of His creation, this was surely to demean his craftsmanship. 20 In other words, the regular sustaining activity of God, as evidenced by natural laws, should be sufficient t o explain the regular behaviour of the solar system, without the need for additional ad-hoc interventions. Making it right the first time is more glorious than having to fix it later. In the same context, Leibniz also emphasised the theological nature of miracles: And I hold, that when God works miracles, he does not do it in order to supply the wants of nature, but those of grace. Whoever thinks otherwise, must needs have a very mean notion of the wisdom and power of God.21 A more modern version of Leibniz’s general objection can be found in a famous statement by Charles Coulson, the first Oxford professor of Theoretical Chemistry who wrote, When we come to the scientifically unknown, our correct policy is not to rejoice because we have found God; it is to become better scientists.22 He popularized the phrase â€Å"God of the gaps† for those who, perhaps like John and Ruth, think that God is found primarily in the lacunas of our scientific understanding. Two sorts of miracles Science, as well as tools from historical disciplines, can be brought to bear on biblical miracles. For example they can be split into those that are examples of providential timing (type i miracles) and those that can only be viewed as directly violating physical cause-effect  relationships (type ii miracles). An example of a possible type i miracle would be the crossing of the river Jordan by the people of Israel: Now the Jordan is at flood stage all during harvest. Yet as soon as the priests who carried the ark reached the Jordan and their feet touched the water’s edge, the water from upstream stopped flowing. It piled up in a heap a great distance away, at a town called Adam in the vicinity of Zarethan, while the water flowing down to the Sea of the Arabah (the Salt Sea) was completely cut off. So the people crossed over opposite Jericho. (Joshua 3:15,16) Colin Humphreys, Cambridge professor of material science, has studied this miracle in great detail 23 and notes that the text supplies a number of unusual clues, including the fact that the water was blocked up a great distance away at a particular town. He has identified this with a location where the Jordan has been known to temporarily dam up when strong earthquakes cause mudslides (most recently in 1927). For many scientists, the fact that God is working through natural processes makes the miracle more palatable: The scientist, even when he is a believer, is bound to try as far as possible to reduce miracles to regularities: the believer, even when he is a scientist, discovers miracles in the most familiar things.24 Of course this doesn’t take away from the fact that there was remarkable timing involved. Perhaps the attraction of this description comes in part because there is a direct corollary with the very common experience of â€Å"providential timing† of events, which believers attribute to God’s working.25 There are also miracles in the Bible that defy description in terms of current science. Perhaps the most significant of these is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If anything, science has strengthened the case for this not being a type i miracle. For example, in John 19:34 we read: Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. Modern medicine suggests that this is clear evidence that the pericardium, a membrane around the heart, was pierced, confirming that he was in fact dead. The more we know about the processes of decay that set in after death, the less likely it appears that Jesus could have risen from the dead by any natural means. Rather, science strengthens the case that if Jesus did indeed rise from the dead, the event must have occurred through a direct injection of supernatural power into the web of cause and effect that undergirds our physical world – it was a type ii miracle. Of course the resurrection is central to Christian teaching: And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. (I Corinthians 15:14) Given that almost every great Christian thinker in history has emphasized the fact that miracles must be understood within the context of a theological purpose, perhaps one could invert this argument and say that it is not surprising that the central eve nt in history would be miraculous. 26 So where has this argument brought us? I have argued that the precise relationship between miracles and science has been the subject of a long and unresolved debate with strands reaching back to the early Church fathers. Theologians wrestle with questions that concern the differences between God’s regular sustaining action and His special non-repeating actions, i.e. miracles, and how these fit in with redemptive purpose. There is a link to the question of demarcation in science, since within a robust biblical theism the regular working of God’s action, the â€Å"customs of the Creator† (or natural laws) are, almost by design, amenable to scientific analysis. Biblical miracles, in contrast, are always linked to special theological purpose and are therefore, almost by definition, non-repeatable and a-scientific. 4. The decisive significance of worldviews If Martin and I would have time to get this far in conversation, I’m sure we would have swiftly passed th e red herring of natural science being the touchstone upon which to examine biblical miracles. But Martin could point out that Hume made a number of other arguments against miracles, namely: Witness testimony is often suspect. ï‚ ·Stories get exaggerated in the retelling. Miracles are chiefly seen among ignorant and barbarous people. ï‚ ·Rival religions also have miracle stories, so they cancel each other out. These arguments are substantial, and I refer to footnote 3 for an introduction to the voluminous literature they have inspired. However, we can take a little stab at the first two objections. It is true that witness testimony cannot always be trusted and that stories change with time. But these are the same problems that face legal systems and historians. Nonetheless, we can employ the tools of these professions to examine biblical miracles. Take, for example, the resurrection of Jesus Christ. There is significant extrabiblical historical evidence that he indeed lived. Much has been written about the general trustworthiness of the Gospels. For example, there is much internal evidence, in both the style and content of the narratives, that the writers themselve s were convinced that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead. Tradition holds that 11 of the 12 original apostles were martyred for this belief that turned a group of cowards into a people who â€Å"turned the world upside down.† Although it is well beyond the scope of this essay, a very strong case for the plausibility of the resurrection can be made.27 Similar analysis can be brought to bear on other miracle claims, including those of other religions. After all, every meaningful system of thought must be open to careful scrutiny. But I suspect that often, underneath the surface, it is really the third argument that carries the most persuasive force. In part because history is littered with claims for the miraculous that seem bizarre, or smack of superstition, and in part because the incredible advances of modern science and technology inspire awe, we can intensely feel the attraction of identifying with the latter and not the former. This disposition is exemplified in the following quote by the theologian Rudolph Bultmann, a man famous for his attempts to de-mythologize the New Testament: It is impossible to use electric light and the wireless and to avail ourselves of modern medical and surgical discoveries, and at the same time to believe in the New Testament world of spirits and miracles.28 By getting rid of the miracle stories in the Bible,  Bultmann and his followers hoped to make the Christian story more palatable to modern man. Although I recognize the emotional weight of this sentiment, I am not convinced that it is an intellectually coherent approach, mainly for reasons of self-consistency. If the New Testamentitself asserts, both directly and indirectly, that the historicity of the resurrection is foundational to Christianity, then it would seem to stand or fall by that fact. As a physicist, I have a natural penchant for wanting to see how an idea relates to more basic principles. And to analyze the validity of a quote like the one above, we must take a cold hard look at our fundamental presuppositions. In the words of John Polkinghorne: If we are to understand the nature of reality, we have only two possible starting points: either the brute fact of the physical world or the brute fact of a divine will and purpose behind that physical world.29 Where does each of those two fundamental starting points take us? When we use them to construct a worldview, what kind of sense does it make of experience, morality, truth, beauty, and our place in the world? These are not easy questions. There is so much mystery around us. Perhaps the best way to move forward would be to borrow Mermin’s tapestry analogy and carefully investigate whether the different threads of historical evidence, philosophical consistency, and personal knowledge can be woven together into a worldview that is robust. In particular, does our tapestry posses those qualities of coherence and (surprising) fruitfulness that characterise the best scientific tapestries? If I start from the brute facts of nature, I personally am unable to construct a tapestry that is both rigorous and rich enough to make sufficient sense of the world. By contrast, if I assume a divine will and purpose behind the world I believe that I can construct a much more compelling tapesty that incorporates all of the threads of human  existence. Within that purposeful world, the case for Christianity is much more persuasive. To use a famous quote from C.S. Lewis: I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen-not only because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.30 It is the sum total of all those arguments that convinces me of the veracity of biblical miracles. Nevertheless, I recognize that no matter how cogent, say, the historical evidence for the resurrection is, if I start from a different worldview, as Martin and Rudolph Bultmann do, then it will be virtually impossible to accept the existence of biblical miracles. (In the end I think this is what Hume is really saying). Miracles cannot be interpreted independently from the theological context in which they function. They are part of a package deal. I don’t know what Martin would make of all that. We would surely need more than one glass of wine to complete this discussion (but wouldn’t it be fun?). 5. Conclusion Finally, what would I say to John and Ruth? If they are like many Christians I know, they might feel a slight uneasiness with science, a subconscious fear fed by the pontifications of some popularizers who seem keen to equate science with atheism.31 So perhaps I would first point out the obvious limits of science. But then I might tell the story of Leibniz and Newton’s exchange, and point out that Newton was a good enough theologian not to turn the alleged instability of the planets into a God of the gaps argument. Similarly, if it is true that we don’t yet understand how birds can navigate so accurately over large distances, then surely it would bring more glory to God to search for the mechanisms by which such remarkable feats are accomplished: It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings. Proverbs 25:2 Perhaps because evolution has been a particularly favorite bludgeon of the science = atheism cabal, a Christian mini-industry has sprung up to debunk it. Unfortunately, this only feeds the public misperception that the core of the conflict between science and faith concerns scientific mechanism (evolution did or did not occur) rather than one of the philosophy and interpretation of science. God could, of course, have regularly used miracles to create throughout the time-span of natural history. He is free. But whether he did so in natural history is fundamentally a question of Biblical interpretation. 32 Surely it is even more glorious if God could design a physical system that creates itself through the regularities of his sustaining action. Like many of my Christian scientific colleagues who hold to a high view of Scripture, I believe the biblical text allows itself to be interpreted in this way, that sentient beings arose primarily through the ordinary â€Å"customs of the Creato r,† and that moreover it glorifies God to seek to understand these patterns.33 John and Ruth might then ask: if I emphasize the integrity of the regular action of God in sustaining the universe, and even in creating us, then why should miracles occur at all? Can they occur today? Rather than answer that theological question directly, let me resort to a musical analogy borrowed from Colin Humphreys. Suppose you are watching a pianist play a classical piece. You will notice that there are certain notes that he plays, and certain ones that he never does. The choice of notes is constrained because the music is being played in a particular key signature. But then, occasionally he may break this rule and play an unusual note. Musicians call these accidentals, and a composer can put them in wherever she likes (although if there are too many the music would sound strange). As Humphreys puts it, If he is a great composer, the accidentals will never be used capriciously: they will always make better music. It is the accidentals which contribute to making the piece of music great. The analogy with how God operates is clear: God created and upholds the universe but, like the great composer, he is free to override his own rules. However, if he is a c onsistent God, it must make more sense than less for him to override his rules.34 Notes 1. 2. 3. Alister McGrath, Dawkins’ God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life, (Blackwell, Oxford 2005) p 92. A good example of this is Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, (Bantam, London 2006) David Hume, Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals, (1748). Hume’s argument has often been criticized for being self-referential. He at first presupposes that no reasonable person can believe that the laws of nature can be violated, and then concludes that miracles cannot occur because he defines them as violations of the laws of nature. Note that this analysis is not accepted by all commentators. Colin Brown, Miracles and the Critical Mind, (Paternoster, Exeter, 1984) provides a lucid overview of the debate. See also John Earman, Hume’s Abject Failure. The Argument against Miracles (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000) for a critical view, and Peter Harrison, â€Å"Miracles, Early Modern Science, and Rational Religion†, Church History 75 (3) pp. 493-511 (2006) for an interesting historical perspective. I am reminded of a famous quote by US Supreme Court judge Potter Stewart who, when asked to distinguish between art and pornography, noted that although it was hard to define: â€Å"I know it when I see it† (Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964)). N. David Mermin, â€Å"The Golemization of Relativity†, Physics Today 49, 11–13 (1996) Peter Lipton, Inference to the Best Explanation, (Routledge, London, 2004) In the 1990’s this tension between sociologists and the scientific community erupted into the so-called ‘Science Wars’. For a good overview, see e.g. J. A. Labinger and H. Collins (eds), The One Culture? A Conversation about Science, (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2001). Quote from Nobel Prize winner E. Wigner, â€Å"The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences†, Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 13, No. I (February 1960). An iconic example would be Paul Dirac’s 1928 prediction of anti-ma tter, which he showed to be necessary to satisfy the mathematical consistency constraints  imposed by combining quantum mechanics and special relativity for electrons. See P.A.M. Dirac, Proc. Roy. Soc. A, 117, 610 (1928). The cultural differences between more mathematically minded physical scientists and more empirically minded biological scientists are discussed by Evelyn Fox Keller, in a fascinating book: Making Sense of Life: Explaining Biological Development with Models, Metaphors, and Machines, Harvard University Press, Boston (2002). Such instinctive reactions are what make interdisciplinary research so difficult. Clearly biology has been incredibly successful despite its differences with my scientific culture. I also suggest that as the questions we ask become difficult (often the case for applied subjects like medicine), the tapestries, by necessity, become more fragile. I realize that this is more subtle for historical sciences like geology and cosmology (we have, for example, only observed one universe). Nevertheless, even in these fields, parallel concepts apply. P.B. Medawar, The Limits of Science, Oxford University Press, Oxford (1987) . There are interesting analogies here to making a religious commitment. Christians would argue that important aspects of the Christian life can only be understood and experienced from within a relationship with Christ. That is not to say that a step of faith is just a blind leap in the dark. It should be a decision that is informed by careful thinking and weighing of evidence. But it is more than just that. Augustine, Literal Commentary on Genesis, c AD 391 See e.g. C. J. Collins, Science and Faith: Friends or Foes? (Crossway, Wheaton, 2003) ch 11. See e.g. R. Hooykaas, Religion and the Rise of Modern Science, (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids,1972) John Donne (Eighty Sermons, #22 published in 1640) John Hedley Brooke, Science and Religion , CUP, Cambridge (1991), p147. Leibniz, as quoted by C. Brown, Miracles and the Critical Mind, (Paternoster, Exeter, 1984), p 75. Charles Coulson, Christianity in an Age of Science, 25th Riddell Memorial Lecture Series, Oxford University Press, Oxford, (1953). Colin Humphreys The Miracles of Exodus: A Scientist’s Discovery of the Extraordinary Natural Causes of the Biblical Stories, (Harper Collins, San Francisco, 2003). R. Hooykaas, op cit One could argue that God must nevertheless employ divine action to set up the conditions necessary for a type i miracle to occur at the right time. In that sense both kinds of miracles may involve violations of normal physical cause-effect relations, but in type i this is more hidden. Note that I am not arguing that miracles  break ultimate cause-effect relationships. Within a divine economy, they may make perfect causal sense. Language like â€Å"violation of physical cause-effect† reflects our limited access to the mind of God.