Purpose is Important

Let's all say a hearty hello to two definitions from dictionary.com: 

RELIGION: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 

SCIENCE: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. 

OR 

the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms. 

I would hope that it's apparent that not only do religion and science seek to explain different things, but they explain it by different methods. 

I've blogged this quote recently, but C.S. Lewis explains the different purposes of science and religion so perfectly. 

Science works by experiments. It watches how things behave. Every scientific statement in the long run, however complicated it looks, really means something like, "I pointed the telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2:20 A.M. on January 15th and saw so-and-so," or, "I put some of this stuff in a pot and heated it to such-and-such a temperature and it did so-and-so." Do not think I am saying anything against science: I am only saying what its job is. And the more scientific a man is, the more (I believe) he would agree with me that this is the job of science- and a very useful and necessary job it is too. But why anything comes to be there at all, and whether there is anything behind the things science observes-something of a different kind-this is not a scientific question. If there is "Something Behind," then either it will have to remain altogether unknown to men or else make itself known in some different way. The statement that there is any such thing, and the statement that there is no such thing, are neither of them statements that science can make. And real scientists do not usually make them. It is usually the journalists and popular novelists who have picked up a few odds and ends of half-baked science from textbooks who go in for them. After all, it is really a matter of common sense. Supposing science ever became complete so that it knew every single thing in the whole universe. Is it not plain that the questions, "Why is there a universe?" "Why does it go on as it does?" "Has it any meaning?" would remain just as they were?

So many people nowadays desire to discount and exclude religion from public discourse because it is based on ideas or concepts not scientifically-proven. Well, duh. Science is the recording of observations of the material/physical world. Religion explains the cause, source, and purpose of what science observes. Science is one way of "knowing" (and I use that word verrry loosely, since science is constantly changing "its" mind or claiming opposing facts). Science has its limits. Just ask an epistemologist, someone whose work is the philosophical study of knowledge--its limits, its scope, and how it is obtained. Reading up on it shows some of those limits. 
Theoretically, religion has more bearing on science than the other way around. Even from the above definitions we can see the way religion would, in theory, affect science. Religion involves a moral code that governs the conducting of "human affairs." Scientific observation is included in those "human affairs," and would thus be affected by a religious moral code. This is why some religious people are extremely opposed to things like stem-cell research and contraceptives/abortion; they believe these scientific advancements are in violation of the moral code. 
A further example of religion's bearing on science. Let's start with the idea of purpose versus function. The purpose of something provides insight into how it functions--especially how it SHOULD function. For example, suppose we set a man in a room full of new objects, one of which is a cellular phone. He can, by experimentation and observation, explain some of the things the phone is capable of. But without knowledge of its purpose, he won't know or appreciate its full functionality or how to use it as it was intended to be used--nor will he necessarily know HOW it came into being and by WHOM. On the other hand, place that man with the same device AND the knowledge of its purpose and its source, and he can use it accordingly, in addition to understanding HOW it functions. Purpose affects the way something is used, and that is why it is such a vital key in the search for knowledge. It is so much easier and more practical to explain the "how" when we know the "why." A more familiar example of this is education. Completing a degree in any subject is much harder when we don't feel there is a purpose or motive behind it. Sure, you can do chemistry homework after being taught in an organic chemistry class. You know HOW to do the homework. But wouldn't your attitude and approach change if you knew that you were studying and doing the homework so that you could in time become a doctor? Junior high and high school students are recognized in the discipline of psychology as a group at a developmental stage which makes it very difficult to think in terms of "the long run." Their pre-frontal cortex (some of whose functions include focusing attention, forming strategies, impulse control, and planning) is still in the developmental phase. Try getting one of these "now"-focused students to understand and appreciate the importance of diligence in school and how it will affect them for the rest of their lives. It doesn't come naturally to most of them. Once that cortex develops, though, they are much better able to self-regulate and plan ahead. Likewise, when we know our purpose here--the "why"--it changes our approach to the "how," the "who," the "what," the "where," and the "when." 
Religion is the "why." Science is PART of the "how," affected by "why." Science is a part of the greater whole which is religion; not the other way around. 
Religion provides purpose, and purpose generates confidence, motivation, and direction. Science needs religion.

Love 101 taught by the greats

Last Valentine's Day I was in the Peru MTC--honestly I don't remember much of anything exciting happening--the missionary schedule doesn't allow for much variation. It was a good day, but definitely not your typical Valentine's Day. The year before was the most awful Valentine's Day I've experienced times 50. But I'm grateful (okay, not entirely, but somewhat so) for that one, too, since it makes any other Valentine's Day seem beautiful and lovely in comparison. Cheers to adversity for the perspective and contrast it provides.
Valentine's Day is focused more on romantic love, I guess, but, in the absence of that, my mind is on love in the more general sense. From my treasure trove of quotes that I peruse at least a few times a week, I'm going to share some favorites that shed some light on love in its various forms.

"They do not love that do not show their love." William Shakespeare

“Love sought is good, but given unsought, is better.” William Shakespeare

Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:
O no! it is an ever-fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wandering bark,
Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.
Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come:
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.  -William Shakespeare

To love and win is the best thing. To love and lose, the next best. William Makepeace Thackeray

"Love is something more stern and splendid than mere kindness." CS Lewis

"Knowledge can last, principles can last, habits can last; but feelings come and go... But, of course, ceasing to be 'in love' need not mean ceasing to love. Love in this second sense — love as distinct from 'being in love' — is not merely a feeling. It is a deep unity, maintained by the will and deliberately strengthened by habit; reinforced by (in Christian marriage) the grace which both partners ask, and receive, from God... 'Being in love' first moved them to promise fidelity: this quieter love enables them to keep the promise. It is on this love that the engine of marriage is run: being in love was the explosion that started it."  CS Lewis

"Do not waste time bothering whether you ‘love’ your neighbor; act as if you did. As soon as we do this we find one of the great secrets. When you are behaving as if you loved someone, you will presently come to love him." CS Lewis

"The promise, made when I am in love and because I am in love, to be true to the beloved as long as I live, commits me to being true even if I cease to be in love. A promise must be about things that I can do, about actions: no one can promise to go on feeling in a certain way. He might as well promise to never have a headache or always to feel hungry." CS Lewis

"Love may, indeed, love the beloved when her beauty is lost: but not because it is lost. Love may forgive all infirmities and love still in spite of them: but Love cannot cease to will their removal. Love is more sensitive than hatred itself to every blemish in the beloved… Of all powers he forgives most, but he condones least: he is pleased with little, but demands all." CS Lewis

"Most people live for love and admiration. But it is by love and admiration that we should live." Oscar Wilde

Let no one who loves be unhappy... even love unreturned has its rainbow.  ~James Matthew Barrie

“God the Eternal Father did not give that first great commandment because He needs us to love Him. His power and glory are not diminished should we disregard, deny, or even defile His name. His influence and dominion extend through time and space independent of our acceptance, approval, or admiration. No, God does not need us to love Him. But oh, how we need to love God!” President Uchtdorf

 "Love is always bestowed as a gift - freely, willingly, and without expectation - We don't love to be loved; we love to love." - Leo F. Buscaglia 

"Since love grows within you, so beauty grows. For love is the beauty of the soul." - Saint Augustine of Hippo

"Absence sharpens love, presence strengthens it." - Thomas Fuller 

 "The most powerful symptom of love is a tenderness which becomes at times almost insupportable." - Victor Hugo

"Love means to commit oneself without guarantee, to give oneself completely in the hope that our love will produce love in the lovedperson. Love is an act of faith, and whoever is of little faith is also of little love." - Erich Fromm 

"Love grows by giving. The love we give away is the only love we keep. The only way to retain love is to give it away." - Elbert Green Hubbard

Thanks to all of these lovely people for providing a course in Love 101.

Same same but different

My boss was director of BYU's London Centre for three years, and he is just an all-around great person. I work in an office full of people with more cross-cultural experience than any other office on campus, hands down. It's definitely an inspiring environment, full of mind-expanding conversation on a daily basis. Work provides constant opportunities for self-evaluation. I'm frequently left wondering where I fall on different cultural spectra--tolerance, awareness, acceptance, etc. This is especially valuable on a campus like BYU where it's easy to get comfortable thinking you're surrounded by people with relatively similar views and backgrounds.
As my boss Dave talked about the kind of people he and his daughters interacted with in London, I got a craving for palpable diversity. There's something so intriguing to me about people's backgrounds--their stories. Sometimes I love to sit, people watch, and just wonder, "What's his story? What's her story?" That's one of the reasons I want to go into international health--I love discovering stories.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not always the one running out, arms wide open to embrace differences and diversity. Difference also scares me at times. I remember opening my mission call to Bolivia. After all the initial excitement, pouring over a map of South America, and Googling Bolivia and Bolivians, I remember feeling an absolute disconnect as I looked at the images of native Bolivians. They looked so very different from me. They dressed so very differently from me. They must BE so very different from me. And I didn't want to go. I wanted a new call. Those were sad moments for my Christlike attribute quest. I lacked charity and perspective, among a whole list of other things.
A similar experience occurred when I arrived in the Lima Peru MTC. I didn't crawl into bed until 1 a.m. I was tired enough to be anxious for rest, especially knowing that I was on the 6:30 a.m. missionary schedule. I remember crawling under the itchy blanket, vaguely wondering with a touch of anxiety who the other 3 blanketed bodies were in my room, but relegating that issue to the back of my mind until I had to deal with it. In the morning, I found out my companion was Hermana Chacon, from Guatemala City. I climbed down the bunkbed ladder onto the floor where she was standing. Cue the awkward moments. This 5-foot-nothing, Central American, Spanish-speaking, shy girl was my new 24-hour "other half." Not only was our communication hampered because of my lack of Spanish skills and her lack of English skills, but we had nothing TO say to each other. We lacked both tools and material. As we went to the "comedor" to eat our "desayuno," I looked around at 115 unfamiliar, Latino and Latina faces. I felt an inner panic as I realized that this was my new home for 6 weeks. The inability to express the sentiments that were flowing through my emotional veins to all my extremities enhanced the feeling of "apart" and "different." I saw the Latinos as "them," and the North Americans as "us." Theoretically, I knew we were all "brothers and sisters" and all that, but there's nothing like a real situation to challenge mental and spiritual concepts. I didn't even consider that none of them really knew each other either--they came from different countries, speaking different varieties of Spanish. They were all brand new missionaries, embarking on a completely new adventure, most with calls to countries foreign from their own. None of that crossed my mind. All I could think was in terms of "me," "them," "different," and "same." Selfish. Superficial.
3 weeks later, I ate dinner with Hermana Chacon, Hermana Rodriguez, Hermana Shirley, Hermana Allen, and all the other hermanas at our table. I brought over bread for my companion and me. Hermana Chacon brought two drinks to the table. She offered me jugo de papaya and laughed as I made a disgusted face and shook my  head. She handed me my watermelon juice, knowing I called papaya juice "jugo de pies." She was such a tease. I looked around. All I saw were missionaries I knew and loved. Missionaries I had learned with, taught with, played soccer with, shopped with, laughed with, and maybe even cried with a bit. Then I hugged my little Hermana Chacon and watched pretty heavy-heartedly as she departed with the other Latinos to the mission field. By then, she and I had a metaphorical trunk full of inside jokes and spiritual ups and downs. I love that Guatemaltequita.

I love the Bolivianos. I love the Peruanos. I love "different." Because when you unwrap different from its packaging, it's really the same. In the marketing world, different packaging means, or is at least meant to imply, different content. That's what we're used to in life--different outside means different inside. A red Starburst wrapper means something different than a yellow Starburst wrapper. But people aren't Starbursts. They're more like novels--the same novel that's been published by different companies with many different covers. Maybe the cover is torn. Maybe the pages are gilt-edged. Maybe there's a new foreward or an extra page. Maybe the publishers have a completely different way of putting together a book. But fundamentally, that book is the same. The content and the ideas within the covers are all the same. Jane Eyre still goes to Lowood School whether the book is falling apart or brand new. She still inherits her uncle's fortune whether the title is in size 60 font or size 12. She still ends up with Rochester whether the book is paperback or leather bound. Fundamentally--in every way that really matters, in every way that truly defines it--it's the same book, regardless of how it's packaged and presented. Just like a Gala apple's fundamental elements are the same as a Granny Smith apple's. They may look pretty different as far as apples go, they may taste different, but they are more similar than they are different. The Thai people use a phrase in English that initially made me laugh because it seemed like a oxymoron. But it has since grown on me. It sums people up perfectly. "Same same, but different."
Same same. But different.

Big City

Anonymous
There's something so peaceful about being completely surrounded by chaos. Surrounded but separate. Being in a big city, full of unfamiliar faces and hurried happenings, realizing you're a part of it all and yet retaining a solid sense of your individuality. Anonymity. It's like being alone in nature, but almost better. In nature, you feel like the world has stopped. In the metropolis, you feel like you've stopped, and the world keeps going. It's a different--and more accurate--perspective. Taking time to observe all the people rushing past to different destinations, wondering what their story is, you feel so human.

Lost
Getting lost in the streets of a city. It's either frightening or invigorating--and entirely up to you. Armed with nothing but your wits, you walk aimlessly, stumbling upon hidden treasures that somehow feel uniquely your own in a way that no tourist site ever can. Getting acquainted with the parts of the city that tourists don't penetrate. Discovering the city residents know. Getting on the metro or the bus, and alighting at a random destination, prepared to be inspired by whatever you encounter.
Owning It
Confidence is key to making the city yours. You just fake it til you make it, ditching the sweater around your waist, the aloha shirt, the camera around your neck, and the perplexed look alternating with goofy tourist smiles. You put your "metro face" on, as I call it, and cultivate that look of supreme boredom and indifference while secretly gobbling down every detail of your environment. To the extent that you emanate the aura of a resident, you receive the treatment only a resident gets.

Great Bishops and helpful meetin

I have had great bishops. In the last 24 hours, here is what 3 of mine have done for me:
Bishop Alder--my new bishop who came to the ward building on a day he doesn't normally do so in order to interview me for my ecclesiastical endorsement. I felt awful for making him do that, not to mention Ray in my ward who had to come sit outside the office.
Bishop Barlow--my recently-released bishop who provided a letter of recommendation for me to the BYU MPH program. He's Director of Health Services at BYU, so he's a great one to have recommend me.
Bishop/President Lindsay--my bishop from 3 years ago. Still remembers me, even remembers my dad's job (?!). He's faculty for the MPH program here at the Y and was so amazing today to meet with me. He was so honest with me, and he took me around to different faculty to introduce me and talk me up. I love him.

Such great bishops--I'll pray for all of them to get extra blessings for their help in my behalf.

So more about my meeting with Dr. Lindsay. When he found out I'd applied to LSHTM, he said, "Oh go there!" I was kind of taken aback, but hey, this guy knows his stuff. He said that LSHTM is one of the, if not THE, premier public health school in the world. He said that he was pressured to stay at BYU for his graduate work, but decided to go elsewhere for both his Master's and Doctorate. He said that it's a very good thing to go elsewhere and makes you more employable. He also said not to worry that UCL and LSHTM aren't ASPH/CEPH-accredited.
 Dr. Lindsay took me to meet the program director who was super nice and so complimentary about my application and qualifications. I didn't expect to be considered a very competitive applicant, but he made me believe otherwise. He said I had very impressive GRE scores. He went through a list of students and let me know the employment of each and every one (about evenly split between medical school, NGO work, and Department of Health). I left feeling very good about my employability post-program, and honestly, the faculty seem amazing! Dr. Lindsay also took me to meet Dr. Novilla whose specialty is in maternal/child health. I'm supposed to call and meet with her to talk about her research interests as a possible mentor should I be accepted and choose to attend.
Basically, I left the meeting feeling very relieved that either way will be a good decision. Also, I had a distinct impression of how different the graduate world is from undergraduate. On graduate level, professor/student relationships are much more personable. I was so impressed by how everyone I met treated me like it was an honor to meet me rather than the reverse. I'm used to being just another student (one of 32,000) with the same issues and concerns as all the others. But I can tell that, should I be accepted to the program, I would be treated with much more respect. It almost made me nervous how much they treated me as an equal. Dr. Lindsay seemed so confident in my abilities--more so than I feel. Guess that's a problem I need to fix.
I'll have a decision from BYU by March 1st after which I have to give them MY decision within a week. Kind of stressful to think of making that decision should I be accepted. If I'm not accepted, my decision is made for me. I still prefer London based on academics and location. It's just pricier. But BYU isn't a bad option, by any means. For Public Health Promotion, it's as good as any program in the country, Dr. Lindsay said. We'll see how I feel as time goes on, over this next month or so. And we'll see if I get into LSHTM. I'm not overly-optimistic about that at this point, since I think I wasn't accepted for my top choice program (Public Health Nutrition). I may be accepted to their Public Health Promotion program (my last choice of 4 there) if I'm lucky? We'll see.
Actually, though, from the bare bones, no financial aid included, the costs of attending BYU's 2-year program vs. UCL's one-year program are pretty much the same. That's based on each university's website and the estimates they give for cost of living and tuition. However, BYU's estimates were obviously out-of-control high. $1500/month in living expenses? Uh, no. This is Provo, not London. Also, Dr. Lindsay said it's almost guaranteed that I'd have an internship for my first year--I think that takes care of one semester's tuition. After that, he said, we're kind of on our own. You can't really have a job during the program--it's too intense.
In London, I can work up to 20 hours per week. I don't know how intense the program is (I should email and ask) but I was thinking about how I could even tutor in French if needed. Lovely.
Anyway, it's crazy to think I could be either still in Provo or way over in London in 7 months. Who knows where my future's taking me? Exciting and overwhelming at the same time.

The Dentist Diaries

Here are some parts of today's trip to the dentist that I didn't love:

--Three shots of Novocaine. Okay, so I liked them because they made later pain much less than it otherwise would have been, but there's something about a big, fat needle entering the roof of my mouth that I just am not crazy about.
--The water from the dental hygienist's squirter cascading down both sides of my face, down my neck, and into my hair/shirt.
--Feeling around my mouth with my tongue at one point, only to discover almost my whole tooth had been shaved off. There was just a wee bit left. I want my tooth back.
--The smell and sight of tooth shavings coming off the drill
--The laser the dentist used to burn off tissue around my tooth. Why this is necessary is beyond me. Even with three shots of Novocaine, I could feel that one. I did get to wear special green sunglasses during lasertime, though.
--The taste of the crown mold I had to keep in my mouth for 5 minutes. That purple crap tasted awful and stuck my numb lips to the molding stick. I'm still finding traces of purple on my lips.
--After 45 minutes, when the dentist gets out the drill and says, "Let's see if this area is completely numb." Umm must we do a trial and error experiment? Why not just stick some more Novocaine in there?
--How it wasn't completely numb. I could feel the work they did on my bottom pre-molar. But for some reason, even when the dentist asked, "You doing all right?" I said, "Yeah!" Not just "Yeah," but "Yeah!" I should've just asked for more Novocaine.
--The "rubber dam" (damn's more like it) that they put on my face. I especially have bad feelings toward the elastic contraption that they seem to shove up into the brain region based on how much pain it causes. Even being completely numb, I want to cry when they jam those things into my gums.
--When the dentist told me my temporary crown can be pulled out by pulling straight down. In his words, "If it comes off, you won't feel any pain, but it will look kinda funny." Um, yeah, based on how much tooth was left before you put the crown on, I think "kinda funny" is a slight understatement.
--The temporary crown. As I looked in the mirror after my appointment, I was less than enthusiastic about it. It looks like my tooth went through the war. And the gum above it looks angry at how it was treated. I'm pretty sure it feels violated.

Why do I pay this man to hurt me?
But hey, at least I can chew. Thanks, dentist.

Skeletons or cobwebs?

I'm definitely not one who claims deep or comprehensive political knowledge, but I do have a brain. So, lemme get this straight--based on today's news and the comments people are making, our nation would apparently prefer a poor candidate who doesn't know how to handle money to be a key figure in handling the national budget? Everybody seems to be so up in arms over Mitt Romney's wealth and his tax disclosures. Firstly, Romney paid the taxes required of him by the government. That's a good thing, right? He didn't set the tax rate on his income, contrary to what people's reactions seem to imply. Second, people seem to be upset about his charitable contributions to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Getting a deduction as a result of paying tithing is not the same as doing it in order to GET the deduction. Correlation is not causation. But people just can't possibly believe the best of someone when there's another option open to them. In a country where religion is becoming more and more taboo, so many don't seem to be capable of understanding faith-based actions like tithe-paying.
So the apparent favorite is not the business-savvy, clean-cut, principled, well-to-do Mitt Romney

but rather the hypocritical, unfaithful, explosive Newt Gingrich?

I must be missing something here. It's incredibly sad to me how mistrusting people are of Mitt Romney--like they just can't believe that somebody could be as strait-laced and genuine as Mitt comes off to be. And if they believe it, they don't like it. "He's too cold," they say. Our society is much too accustomed to skeletons in the closet to believe it when they see a closet free of skeletons. So they point out the crooked shelves or the cobwebs. And somehow, for more and more Americans, Newt's numerous skeletons pale in comparison to Mitt's cobwebs. Mitt Romney has been criticized for flip-flopping. Apparently it's better to remain in one stance, oblivious to the other side of the argument, in ignorance, than to learn, think, and change. I'm not in favor of a candidate who's constantly back and forth, but it's natural for people to progress in their thinking. More obviously and importantly still, I think, is this: Mitt Romney was governor of a state. Does it occur to anyone else that someone's ideas of what is appropriate on the state level might differ from what they believe to be right on the federal level? Isn't that the whole reason we have different levels of government? I dunno, maybe we need another 4 years of Obama (cuz let's be honest, Newt ain't gonna win that one!) as a metaphorical slap in the face for America.