FREE TAPATALK APP

SusanB-M1 · 10th April 2012, 12:26 PM

May I please ask for a few opinions on him as a Physicist and how he was able to find a belief in the resurrection compatible with his science?
I ask because I am in a discussion on the ship of Fools and I'd like to give a really good, rational response !

Brown · 10th April 2012, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by SusanB-M1

May I please ask for a few opinions on him as a Physicist and how he was able to find a belief in the resurrection compatible with his science?
I ask because I am in a discussion on the ship of Fools and I'd like to give a really good, rational response !

Take a look in Sam Harris's "The Moral Landscape." Polkinghome gets some attention there. Basically, his discussion of supernatural events is so far removed from science that it is indistinguishable from double-talk. In other words, if you took the codswallop of a pseudoscientist and the "explanations" of Polkinghome, and put them side by side, you would be hard pressed to tell one from the other. On these non-science questions, the scientist and the BS artist sound exactly alike.

westprog · 10th April 2012, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by SusanB-M1

May I please ask for a few opinions on him as a Physicist and how he was able to find a belief in the resurrection compatible with his science?
I ask because I am in a discussion on the ship of Fools and I'd like to give a really good, rational response !

I am far from being an expert on the matter, but I'll just say that it's important to distinguish between his scientific record - which seems to be pretty good - if not in the Noble-winning first rank, at least able to associate with the likes of Gell-Mann and Josephson. He's then turned to philosophy and religion. It's quite possible to disagree with his philosophical and religious opinions, but they are of a different kind to his scientific opinions.

Marduk · 10th April 2012, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by SusanB-M1

May I please ask for a few opinions on him as a Physicist and how he was able to find a belief in the resurrection compatible with his science?
I ask because I am in a discussion on the ship of Fools and I'd like to give a really good, rational response !

its not de rigeur to call him Sir John since he's been ordained in the Anglican church, his real title is The Rev. Dr John Charlton Polkinghorne, KBE, FRS

he expresses his own view on the questions youve asked here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne#Ideas

SusanB-M1 · 10th April 2012, 09:54 PM

westprog and Marduk

Many thanks for your replies. I will follow up the links and compose my SoF response! When I typed the title , I was thinking of the bit in the wikipedia link I'd had a look at and it mentioned he was knighted, but yes it did talk of him as the Rev of course.

Oh dear, apologies! I omitted your name, Brown! I have just been following several google links, starting with the Sam Harris reference, and have come to this one
http://richarddawkins.net/users/164466/comments
where the passage quoted in the first post aptly illustrates what you said!

More later.

westprog · 10th April 2012, 10:07 PM

Originally Posted by SusanB-M1

westprog and Marduk

Many thanks for your replies. I will follow up the links and compose my SoF response! When I typed the title , I was thinking of the bit in the wikipedia link I'd had a look at and it mentioned he was knighted, but yes it did talk of him as the Rev of course.

As with most people - it's worth finding out what he says - not what other people say he says. Cherry-picked quotes by people with an agenda can be misleading as well.

FattyCatty · 10th April 2012, 10:22 PM

I like what I've read and listened to by him. He's one of the people who showed me that I did believe in God. His credentials as a physicist seem pretty good. The OP seems to imply that he must not be a good scientist because he is also a Christian. I think that's faulty logic due to prejudice.

catsmate1 · 11th April 2012, 02:41 AM

Originally Posted by SusanB-M1

May I please ask for a few opinions on him as a Physicist and how he was able to find a belief in the resurrection compatible with his science?
I ask because I am in a discussion on the ship of Fools and I'd like to give a really good, rational response !

Compartmentalisation. Doublethink

Garrette · 11th April 2012, 04:15 AM

I've never read any of his theological/philosophical writings, though I knew they were out there. I was mightily impressed, however, with the couple of written-for-laymen science books he has out. Not as clear a writer as Asimov, but still very very well done.

paiute · 11th April 2012, 05:07 AM

Originally Posted by SusanB-M1

May I please ask for a few opinions on him as a Physicist...

Physicist? I thought it was a pen name for a gay porn author.

SusanB-M1 · 11th April 2012, 11:38 AM

My thanks for all new posts.

Originally Posted by FattyCatty

I like what I've read and listened to by him. He's one of the people who showed me that I did believe in God.

Can you pinpoint at all anything particular that made you believe in God?

Quote:

His credentials as a physicist seem pretty good. The OP seems to imply that he must not be a good scientist because he is also a Christian. I think that's faulty logic due to prejudice.

Well, nowadays I do not see how scientists can really believe in something without evidence, but I see he was born in 1930 so he's a little older than I am and grew up at a time when the CofE way of things was more or less unquestioned and it was the height of bad manners to ask a person about his/her beliefs.

Originally Posted by catsmate1

Compartmentalisation. Doublethink

Ddefinitely!

Originally Posted by Garrette

I've never read any of his theological/philosophical writings, though I knew they were out there. I was mightily impressed, however, with the couple of written-for-laymen science books he has out. Not as clear a writer as Asimov, but still very very well done.

Do I presume these date back to his pre-rev days?

FattyCatty · 11th April 2012, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by SusanB-M1

My thanks for all new posts.

Can you pinpoint at all anything particular that made you believe in God?

I wouldn't say "made me believe in God" because I think I was starting to believe before this. But some of the things that made me realize I did believe in God were:

A lecture by John Polkinghorne - http://royalsociety.tv/rsPlayer.aspx?presentationid=100
A lecture by Francis Collins - Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life’s Faith Angle Conference
Reading the JREF Forum, especially my reaction to Avid Atheists in various threads.

Quote:

Well, nowadays I do not see how scientists can really believe in something without evidence, but I see he was born in 1930 so he's a little older than I am and grew up at a time when the CofE way of things was more or less unquestioned and it was the height of bad manners to ask a person about his/her beliefs.

<snip>

Not everyone, including not all scientists, believe that science answers all questions in all realms of the universe/world. Many know that science has limits.

Here are two quotes/links from an earlier thread:

Although you must pay for the full article, here is the abstract from an article in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Volume 50, Issue 3, pages 552–569, September 2011,"Scientists Negotiate Boundaries Between Religion and Science," by Elaine Howard Ecklund¹, Jerry Z. Park², Katherine L. Sorrell³:

Quote:

Analysis of interviews with 275 natural and social scientists at 21 elite U.S. research universities suggests that only a minority of scientists see religion and science as always in conflict. Scientists selectively employ different cultural strategies with regards to the religion-science relationship: redefining categories (the use of institutional resources from religion and from science), integration models (scientists strategically employ the views of major scientific actors to legitimate a more symbiotic relationship between science and religion), and intentional talk (scientists actively engage in discussions about the boundaries between science and religion). Such results challenge narrow conceptions of secularization theory and the sociology of science literature by describing ways science intersects with other knowledge categories. Most broadly the ways that institutions and ideologies shape one another through the agency of individual actors within those institutions is explored.

From Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think by Elaine Howard Ecklund, Oxford University Press, 2010:

Quote:

<snip>
Aggressive attacks on religion such as Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion do not accurately represent the complex ways in which scientists -- even those who are not religious -- actually engage religion and spirituality. The general public misunderstands what scientists really think about the relationship between science and religion; many accept the extreme hostility of a few as representative of all scientists' views about faith. As for the scientists themselves, they are not generally prone to religious discussion, and have very little idea about what their colleagues really believe.

It is important that we uncover the complex truth about what scientists practice and believe as well as how they encounter and engage (or disengage from) religion in their lives, rather than cede the floor to the hotheads on both sides of this contentious issue.
<snip>
Until now, no one has explored how religion and spirituality enter the lives of scientists at the nation's [United States'] best universities. Neither a polemic nor a manifesto, this book offers a balanced assessment of information gathered scientifically from scientists themselves. These pages present the diverse views of elite scientists from seven natural and social science disciplines at the nation's top research universities. To tell their stories, I draw on data collected during four years of intensive research I conducted between 2005 and 2008 as part of the Religion among Academic Scientists (RAAS) study, including a survey of nearly 1,700 scientists, one-on-one conversations with 275 of them, and notes from lectures and public events where top scientists talked about matters of faith.
<snip>
American public schools have suffered from the religion-science conflicts. Young Americans are not learning what they should about science because their parents' quarrels and impasses are holding them back from studying topics like evolution or from pursuing science careers (out of fear that such pursuits are incompatible with their religious beliefs).
<snip>
If the public thinks that to be a successful scientist, you have to be either antireligious or clueless about religion, this can only be to the detriment of scientific progress and public funding.
<snip>
Although my study was designed to illuminate the differences between natural and social scientists, it uncovered a lot of similarities. Both see themselves as engaged in a search for the truth of scientific fact. And there was very little difference between natural and social scientists in their religious propensities. In fact, it was surprising how closely (with some notable exceptions) the social scientists' conceptions of science and the generation of scientific "facts" meshed with the views of the natural scientists. ²²
<snip>
Other studies have been predicated on narrow definitions of religion. A weakness of such research is the assumption that scientists will define religion in the same ways as do other groups of people. I both analyzed my respondents according to conventional definitions of religion and allowed them to tell me the different ways in which religion and science might operate in their lives outside of a conventional understanding (allowing the generation of a category like "spiritual atheist").

westprog · 11th April 2012, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by FattyCatty

Not everyone, including not all scientists, believe that science answers all questions in all realms of the universe/world. Many know that science has limits.

The belief that science can and should answer all questions is possibly the great fallacy of the twenty-first century. It's not a scientific belief, and many scientists know too much science to subscribe to it.

If you believe that science can and should tell you how to behave, then someone like Polkinghome must seem like a strange anomaly. He's seen as somebody who was a scientist, but has now rejected science. In fact, of course, Polkinghome remains absolutely as much in conformance with science as an Anglican priest as he was when researching quarks with Gell-Mann. He hasn't had to reject science at all.

angrysoba · 11th April 2012, 07:52 PM

Originally Posted by westprog

The belief that science can and should answer all questions is possibly the great fallacy of the twenty-first century. It's not a scientific belief, and many scientists know too much science to subscribe to it.

Then again, the strawman fallacy was also going strong in the twentieth century as well as other centuries.

"The belief that science can and should answer all questions".

Who actually believes this?

"Shall we eat out tonight, honey, or stay in and order pizza?"
"I don't know. Let's ask science!"

Garrette · 12th April 2012, 05:32 AM

Originally Posted by SusanB-M1

Do I presume these date back to his pre-rev days?

I don't know when his Rev Days began, but the first of his I read was Quantum Theory: A Very Short Introduction.

The other was The Quantum World. To be honest, I don't remember much about the second one except that I remember actually reading it without too much struggling.

10th April 2012, 12:26 PM	#1
SusanB-M1 Incurable Optimist Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Almost in the New Forest, Hampshire, UK Posts: 2,878	Sir John Polkinghome May I please ask for a few opinions on him as a Physicist and how he was able to find a belief in the resurrection compatible with his science? I ask because I am in a discussion on the ship of Fools and I'd like to give a really good, rational response !
	__________________ I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

10th April 2012, 12:52 PM	#2
Brown Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Twin Cities, Canada Posts: 12,293	Originally Posted by SusanB-M1 May I please ask for a few opinions on him as a Physicist and how he was able to find a belief in the resurrection compatible with his science? I ask because I am in a discussion on the ship of Fools and I'd like to give a really good, rational response ! Take a look in Sam Harris's "The Moral Landscape." Polkinghome gets some attention there. Basically, his discussion of supernatural events is so far removed from science that it is indistinguishable from double-talk. In other words, if you took the codswallop of a pseudoscientist and the "explanations" of Polkinghome, and put them side by side, you would be hard pressed to tell one from the other. On these non-science questions, the scientist and the BS artist sound exactly alike.
	__________________ Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it. Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I am very sorry. I wish it were otherwise. -- The Day The Earth Stood Still, screenplay by Edmund H. North "Don't you get me wrong. I only want to know." -- Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar, lyrics by Tim Rice

10th April 2012, 01:58 PM	#3
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	Originally Posted by SusanB-M1 May I please ask for a few opinions on him as a Physicist and how he was able to find a belief in the resurrection compatible with his science? I ask because I am in a discussion on the ship of Fools and I'd like to give a really good, rational response ! I am far from being an expert on the matter, but I'll just say that it's important to distinguish between his scientific record - which seems to be pretty good - if not in the Noble-winning first rank, at least able to associate with the likes of Gell-Mann and Josephson. He's then turned to philosophy and religion. It's quite possible to disagree with his philosophical and religious opinions, but they are of a different kind to his scientific opinions.
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	__________________ Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.

10th April 2012, 09:54 PM	#5
SusanB-M1 Incurable Optimist Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Almost in the New Forest, Hampshire, UK Posts: 2,878	westprog and Marduk Many thanks for your replies. I will follow up the links and compose my SoF response! When I typed the title , I was thinking of the bit in the wikipedia link I'd had a look at and it mentioned he was knighted, but yes it did talk of him as the Rev of course. Oh dear, apologies! I omitted your name, Brown! I have just been following several google links, starting with the Sam Harris reference, and have come to this one http://richarddawkins.net/users/164466/comments where the passage quoted in the first post aptly illustrates what you said! More later.
	__________________ I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. Last edited by SusanB-M1; 10th April 2012 at 10:21 PM.

10th April 2012, 10:07 PM	#6
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	Originally Posted by SusanB-M1 westprog and Marduk Many thanks for your replies. I will follow up the links and compose my SoF response! When I typed the title , I was thinking of the bit in the wikipedia link I'd had a look at and it mentioned he was knighted, but yes it did talk of him as the Rev of course. As with most people - it's worth finding out what he says - not what other people say he says. Cherry-picked quotes by people with an agenda can be misleading as well.
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	__________________ Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.

10th April 2012, 03:51 PM	#4
Marduk Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 10,242	Originally Posted by SusanB-M1 May I please ask for a few opinions on him as a Physicist and how he was able to find a belief in the resurrection compatible with his science? I ask because I am in a discussion on the ship of Fools and I'd like to give a really good, rational response ! its not de rigeur to call him Sir John since he's been ordained in the Anglican church, his real title is The Rev. Dr John Charlton Polkinghorne, KBE, FRS he expresses his own view on the questions youve asked here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne#Ideas

10th April 2012, 10:22 PM	#7
FattyCatty Picky V. Nitty Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Southern California Posts: 2,441	I like what I've read and listened to by him. He's one of the people who showed me that I did believe in God. His credentials as a physicist seem pretty good. The OP seems to imply that he must not be a good scientist because he is also a Christian. I think that's faulty logic due to prejudice.
	__________________ You can't teach an old dogma new tricks -- Dorothy Parker The sceptics continued to look sceptical and the believers believing -- Catherine Aird _{[/grammar nazi][/Dept of Grammar Security] ftfy -- Wudang Proud member of SCOFF (SoCal Opposing Feline Filleting)}

11th April 2012, 02:41 AM	#8
catsmate1 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland) Posts: 7,241	Originally Posted by SusanB-M1 May I please ask for a few opinions on him as a Physicist and how he was able to find a belief in the resurrection compatible with his science? I ask because I am in a discussion on the ship of Fools and I'd like to give a really good, rational response ! Compartmentalisation. Doublethink

11th April 2012, 04:15 AM	#9
Garrette Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 10,635	I've never read any of his theological/philosophical writings, though I knew they were out there. I was mightily impressed, however, with the couple of written-for-laymen science books he has out. Not as clear a writer as Asimov, but still very very well done.
	__________________ My kids still love me.

11th April 2012, 05:07 AM	#10
paiute Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Smack in the middle of a de Broglie wavelength. Posts: 1,147	Originally Posted by SusanB-M1 May I please ask for a few opinions on him as a Physicist... Physicist? I thought it was a pen name for a gay porn author.
	__________________ A Novel and Efficient Synthesis of Cadaverine Organic chemistry, vengeful ghosts, and high explosives. What could possibly go wrong? Now free for download! http://www.scribd.com/doc/36568510/A...-of-Cadaverine

11th April 2012, 11:38 AM	#11
SusanB-M1 Incurable Optimist Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Almost in the New Forest, Hampshire, UK Posts: 2,878	My thanks for all new posts. Originally Posted by FattyCatty I like what I've read and listened to by him. He's one of the people who showed me that I did believe in God. Can you pinpoint at all anything particular that made you believe in God? Quote: His credentials as a physicist seem pretty good. The OP seems to imply that he must not be a good scientist because he is also a Christian. I think that's faulty logic due to prejudice. Well, nowadays I do not see how scientists can really believe in something without evidence, but I see he was born in 1930 so he's a little older than I am and grew up at a time when the CofE way of things was more or less unquestioned and it was the height of bad manners to ask a person about his/her beliefs. Originally Posted by catsmate1 Compartmentalisation. Doublethink Ddefinitely! Originally Posted by Garrette I've never read any of his theological/philosophical writings, though I knew they were out there. I was mightily impressed, however, with the couple of written-for-laymen science books he has out. Not as clear a writer as Asimov, but still very very well done. Do I presume these date back to his pre-rev days?
	__________________ I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

11th April 2012, 12:43 PM	#12
FattyCatty Picky V. Nitty Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Southern California Posts: 2,441	Originally Posted by SusanB-M1 My thanks for all new posts. Can you pinpoint at all anything particular that made you believe in God? I wouldn't say "made me believe in God" because I think I was starting to believe before this. But some of the things that made me realize I did believe in God were: A lecture by John Polkinghorne - http://royalsociety.tv/rsPlayer.aspx?presentationid=100 A lecture by Francis Collins - Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life’s Faith Angle Conference Reading the JREF Forum, especially my reaction to Avid Atheists in various threads. Quote: Well, nowadays I do not see how scientists can really believe in something without evidence, but I see he was born in 1930 so he's a little older than I am and grew up at a time when the CofE way of things was more or less unquestioned and it was the height of bad manners to ask a person about his/her beliefs. <snip> Not everyone, including not all scientists, believe that science answers all questions in all realms of the universe/world. Many know that science has limits. Here are two quotes/links from an earlier thread: Although you must pay for the full article, here is the abstract from an article in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Volume 50, Issue 3, pages 552–569, September 2011,"Scientists Negotiate Boundaries Between Religion and Science," by Elaine Howard Ecklund¹, Jerry Z. Park², Katherine L. Sorrell³: Quote: Analysis of interviews with 275 natural and social scientists at 21 elite U.S. research universities suggests that only a minority of scientists see religion and science as always in conflict. Scientists selectively employ different cultural strategies with regards to the religion-science relationship: redefining categories (the use of institutional resources from religion and from science), integration models (scientists strategically employ the views of major scientific actors to legitimate a more symbiotic relationship between science and religion), and intentional talk (scientists actively engage in discussions about the boundaries between science and religion). Such results challenge narrow conceptions of secularization theory and the sociology of science literature by describing ways science intersects with other knowledge categories. Most broadly the ways that institutions and ideologies shape one another through the agency of individual actors within those institutions is explored. From Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think by Elaine Howard Ecklund, Oxford University Press, 2010: Quote: <snip> Aggressive attacks on religion such as Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion do not accurately represent the complex ways in which scientists -- even those who are not religious -- actually engage religion and spirituality. The general public misunderstands what scientists really think about the relationship between science and religion; many accept the extreme hostility of a few as representative of all scientists' views about faith. As for the scientists themselves, they are not generally prone to religious discussion, and have very little idea about what their colleagues really believe. It is important that we uncover the complex truth about what scientists practice and believe as well as how they encounter and engage (or disengage from) religion in their lives, rather than cede the floor to the hotheads on both sides of this contentious issue. <snip> Until now, no one has explored how religion and spirituality enter the lives of scientists at the nation's [United States'] best universities. Neither a polemic nor a manifesto, this book offers a balanced assessment of information gathered scientifically from scientists themselves. These pages present the diverse views of elite scientists from seven natural and social science disciplines at the nation's top research universities. To tell their stories, I draw on data collected during four years of intensive research I conducted between 2005 and 2008 as part of the Religion among Academic Scientists (RAAS) study, including a survey of nearly 1,700 scientists, one-on-one conversations with 275 of them, and notes from lectures and public events where top scientists talked about matters of faith. <snip> American public schools have suffered from the religion-science conflicts. Young Americans are not learning what they should about science because their parents' quarrels and impasses are holding them back from studying topics like evolution or from pursuing science careers (out of fear that such pursuits are incompatible with their religious beliefs). <snip> If the public thinks that to be a successful scientist, you have to be either antireligious or clueless about religion, this can only be to the detriment of scientific progress and public funding. <snip> Although my study was designed to illuminate the differences between natural and social scientists, it uncovered a lot of similarities. Both see themselves as engaged in a search for the truth of scientific fact. And there was very little difference between natural and social scientists in their religious propensities. In fact, it was surprising how closely (with some notable exceptions) the social scientists' conceptions of science and the generation of scientific "facts" meshed with the views of the natural scientists. ²² <snip> Other studies have been predicated on narrow definitions of religion. A weakness of such research is the assumption that scientists will define religion in the same ways as do other groups of people. I both analyzed my respondents according to conventional definitions of religion and allowed them to tell me the different ways in which religion and science might operate in their lives outside of a conventional understanding (allowing the generation of a category like "spiritual atheist").
	__________________ You can't teach an old dogma new tricks -- Dorothy Parker The sceptics continued to look sceptical and the believers believing -- Catherine Aird _{[/grammar nazi][/Dept of Grammar Security] ftfy -- Wudang Proud member of SCOFF (SoCal Opposing Feline Filleting)}

11th April 2012, 01:09 PM	#13
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	Originally Posted by FattyCatty Not everyone, including not all scientists, believe that science answers all questions in all realms of the universe/world. Many know that science has limits. The belief that science can and should answer all questions is possibly the great fallacy of the twenty-first century. It's not a scientific belief, and many scientists know too much science to subscribe to it. If you believe that science can and should tell you how to behave, then someone like Polkinghome must seem like a strange anomaly. He's seen as somebody who was a scientist, but has now rejected science. In fact, of course, Polkinghome remains absolutely as much in conformance with science as an Anglican priest as he was when researching quarks with Gell-Mann. He hasn't had to reject science at all.
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	__________________ Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.

11th April 2012, 07:52 PM	#14
angrysoba Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 8,882	Originally Posted by westprog The belief that science can and should answer all questions is possibly the great fallacy of the twenty-first century. It's not a scientific belief, and many scientists know too much science to subscribe to it. Then again, the strawman fallacy was also going strong in the twentieth century as well as other centuries. "The belief that science can and should answer all questions". Who actually believes this? "Shall we eat out tonight, honey, or stay in and order pizza?" "I don't know. Let's ask science!"

12th April 2012, 05:32 AM	#15
Garrette Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 10,635	Originally Posted by SusanB-M1 Do I presume these date back to his pre-rev days? I don't know when his Rev Days began, but the first of his I read was Quantum Theory: A Very Short Introduction. The other was The Quantum World. To be honest, I don't remember much about the second one except that I remember actually reading it without too much struggling.
	__________________ My kids still love me.