"Axial tilt is the reason for the season." (Picture a globe with the northern hemisphere tilted away from the sun...) I believe this is meant to be an anti-theist slogan, although I would point out that I believe there is a reason for the axial tilt.
This is a runner up to my favorite true science picture, the "Gravity Forecast." I linked to this when I was a graduate student, but the site is long since down. Picture a weather forecast graphic, but instead of clouds and temperatures, the 5-day forecast predicts 9.8 m/s^2 down. Even the idea still makes me laugh, perhaps I will reproduce it someday.
Luke cut his 4th tooth today (Finally!). So far they haven't caused us too much trouble. We'll see what happens when he gets his canines.
This is a runner up to my favorite true science picture, the "Gravity Forecast." I linked to this when I was a graduate student, but the site is long since down. Picture a weather forecast graphic, but instead of clouds and temperatures, the 5-day forecast predicts 9.8 m/s^2 down. Even the idea still makes me laugh, perhaps I will reproduce it someday.
Luke cut his 4th tooth today (Finally!). So far they haven't caused us too much trouble. We'll see what happens when he gets his canines.
Comments
So what's the reason for the axial tilt? I'll admit I don't know much astronomy/astrophysics.
By coincidence, just the other day a friend of ours was telling us about how much fun it is to look at the NASA website because apparently they update their space photos regularly. We were wondering about what causes some planets to have rings and others not. Emmanuel said it had to do with what materials were present when the planet was forming, but it's still kind of amazing that it would form a plane like that. And so with rotating on a tilted axis -- I'm not sure why that happens. Of course it probably has a straight-forward explanation -- I could always read a book on it or something. ;^)
I'm glad it's just a joke. It is making fun of Christians (not theists, as I posted...) but we can handle it =). I guess I saw it only on atheist websites, so I assumed something that wasn't true. I personally think it's hilarious.
I was referring to divine providence as the ultimate reason =) but there is probably a scientific reason as well, since the tilts of different planets are different. I have heard that without axial tilt (or with a greater tilt), life on earth would be much more difficult, but I am starting to think that the people who told me that had other motives.
I do not believe there is a "war on Christmas", however at my daughter's school they are talking about Diwali, Hannukah, the Winter Solstice, and Ramadan. No one is talking about Christmas, or even St. Nicholas's Day. My feelings on this probably require a post of their own. Suffice it to say that on the one hand I feel ok about this omission because it's great for Eleanor to be exposed to other beliefs and we do a better job with religious education than the school would. On the other hand, it's a bit strange, since the story of the first Christmas isn't covered in the media any more than the story of Hannukah or Ramadan is, and 5 year olds should know it.
1: As a christian theist trained in science, I have come to the conclusion that this is not a useful distinction. Consider this oversimplied sequence.
Given, that 'god' == whatever formed the cosmos (including the possibility that the cosmos formed itself).
Given, that the cosmos exists.
Then, 'god' exists. (Stay with me here...)
And, all 'natural' processes are therefore also 'providential'.
And therefore it does not matter, for the purposes of explanation, whether 'god' had an intent (providence) that was/is conceptually distinct from the outcome (nature).
2: Corollary - Whether or not 'god' is distinct from the cosmos, we therefore don't have the option of deciding whether 'god' exists, we only have the option of trying to discern whether 'god' is in some sense an individual, whether (as theistic religions claim) humans are morally accountable to 'god', and whether (as christians claim) 'god' was personified in the man Yeshuah of Natzaret, who allegedly satisfied the moral claims of 'god' against 'man' by being crucified and raised again.
(This also may be viewed as 'providential' or 'natural' depending on how complexly one wishes to understand 'nature'. I would argue that everything perceptible, including moral sensibility and spirituality, since they exist, are part of 'nature' and thus the distinction between 'spiritual' and 'natural' is an artificial one, used chiefly to create a dualism that may or may not be realistic.)
end of musings. I am thankful for moderation, as I don't want this to sound like a rant, and I'm confident that Kim will let this through only if it seems actually interesting and not troublesome.
I agree that if you believe in God, separating out nature from divine providence is not useful. However, if you want to know (for example) why there are rings around Saturn, saying "divine providence" is not really very interesting for anyone.
I am starting to come to the conclusion that I need another blog to talk about issues, as opposed to family stories. (I do admit that I brought it up in this case =) Unfortunately I have barely time to write and edit this blog. Maybe after Christmas I'll have some more free time (Ha!) and will start my new blog, "Yelling at the radio." Then we can talk about the existence of God, politics and religion and education, my comparison of dental work and catholic confession and so on.
I don't think that's true. Just tonight I put on The Year Without a Santa Claus for my kids, and when it was done, they chose to put on Nestor the Donkey, which tells the nativity story and was on the same disc. That one is not as popular as some of the Rankin-Bass specials (since it's not as well done), but for an example of a very popular story, there's The Best Christmas Pageant Ever, which is quite charming and made into a fairly popular movie/special (which tells the nativity story as a story within a story). That story was a tradition at my house growing up, and I wouldn't object to my kids watching it. For more modern stuff, I imagine Veggie Tales covers it, and that's just what strikes me off the top of my head -- there are probably more. But the story of Ramadan, Hanukkah, or Solstice in a pop-culture children's program? I've never seen a single example.
Sigh. You are probably right about the nativity story in popular culture, although I'm not quite ready to cede the point. Nestor the Donkey is being shown at 10:30 at night, and even the Charlie Brown Christmas show has been relegated to the back burner, whether because it is boring to modern audiences or specifically because of its religious content, I don't know.
However, almost all of the secularized traditions that they are talking about in class definitely are related to the religious festival, although they were mostly co-opted from other festivals before that. And the traditions, rather than the theology, were most of what was covered with the other festivals.
In conclusion, I should just not complain. Perhaps we should just all celebrate Saturnaila together, instead of a mostly secular holiday which happens to be called Christmas. =)
(I did start another blog, and my first post was going to be about this issue, but it crashed my computer. Perhaps this is a sign. =)
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/calendar/saturnalia.html
For instructions on how to celebrate saturnalia, go to http://www.cs.utk.edu/~Mclennan/BA/Saturnalia.html
I was mostly suggesting Saturnalia because our high school Latin classes made a big deal of it, and they seemed to promote the idea that it was a good time. That was an interesting ritual you pointed to, I don't think the Latin class got into that =).