A substantive but readable and eminently fair book on the rise of the papacy in early Christianity.

Posted by: Irenaeus | December 16, 2007 1:19 AM

Great Scholars. . . Hmmm

I'd like to read something on the History and Philosophy of Chemistry and BioChemistry and how it relates to current incarnations of molecular creativity. [ie. "It's not whether it causes cancer, It's that we can actually create the L config of the molecule! Or the genetic clone, etc. OR "I don't know if they're carcinogenic endocrine disrupters. I just know they make hair shiny."]

I'd also REALLY like to read a book on FMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging)and discoveries about the effects of the Charasmatic Gifts, healing prayer,contemplative prayer, thankfulness, etc. on the brain. I'm sure discoveries in this area can be applied successfully to many people's lives for God's glory. Not the least being the thankfulness exercises for learning disabled children and Brain Injury survivors.
In it's most hopeful idealistic form it would give a new scientific insight on the Nature of God. . . All I need is a degree and grant money and I'd happily work on this for the next 30 years.

And since we're plugging the smartest scholars we've known. My favorite by far is Dr. Montague (Monty) Brown, a professor of Philosophy and Great Books.

Here's a link to his latest easy insightful read.

Half Truths (Where common aphorisms can lead you astray)
http://www.sophiainstitute.com/productdetails.cfm?PC=268

[Sophia press is a non-profit publishing house which revives out of print classics and takes on new Catholic works in all genres.]

Posted by: Sheilagh | December 16, 2007 4:16 AM

A history of Iran-contra, Noriega, and the invasion of Panama. A history that ties together the common players in Iran-contra and Shock & Awe.

Posted by: Will | December 16, 2007 9:40 AM

Hmm, your comment, Erik, makes me think about what a sucker I would be for any product packaged with the art work of , a Dutch illustrator whose lines and colors for some reason hit the sweet spot deep inside my brain. If somebody wrapped dog turds in a Swarte print, I'd be powerless not to at least consider buying it. Seriously.

When I was a really small kid, I was totally weird about packaging, and was putty in the hands of marketers. Nabisco used to put out a line called, I think, "Famous Cookies." All it was was a "greatest hits" collection of Nabisco cookies, brought together in an elongated box -- unusual at the time -- and presented in bright fuchsia-pink wrapping. I thought it was a privilege that our family could partake of cookies that were famous, for heaven's sake! I'd open the box and stare at the arrangement in the plastic tray, and think about the cookie hierarchy (the Vienna fingers were obviously the centerpiece, and therefore the monarch of this cookie country, but they were also plainly a feminine cookie, so this was a matriarchy. But where was the king? There was no obvious choice. Certainly not the lowly butter cookie, who was a pawn in Queen Vienna Fingers' game. And why was the Lorna Doone shortbread so deferential to everyone? What was her problem?

And so forth. I was a very strange child. My poor parents! Anyway, packaging alone provoked those musings, which made me think deeply (well, as deeply as a first grader can) about social hierarchy and difference.

Posted by: Rod Dreher | December 16, 2007 10:02 AM

I have what I think is a great idea for a book. Basically the idea is this, that we Americans tend to think of technological, medical, scientific progress as something that is always going on, and will go on unless (our fear) there is some apocalypse. We love to say, if someone says he thinks X will never be achieved, that people used to think humans would never fly, or would never pass the sound barrier, etc.

But I wonder if, in fact, a generation in the near future is going to be butting up against limitations that stubbornly refuse to be passed. I would be interested in a book that discussed such things.

For example: to start with something easy, we know that people are taller, on average, now than a century or two ago. But people are not simply going to keep getting taller. Someone else can give you the math for that. Again, people are living longer. But I am not at all convinced that people are going to live, on average, much longer than they do now. If that makes sense, what's the upper limit?

Or to start with something zingy - - take the record for running the mile. Presumably at some point we are going to have a record that stubbornly refuses to be passed; obviously humans will not go on forever shaving off another tenth of a second.

Now to more serious topics. Like many people, I'm a lifelong reader of science fiction. But when you talk about humans leaving the immediate neighborhood of earth (which includes the moon, a mere 240,00 miles or so away), you run up against some really very serious issues, including prolonged exposure to cosmic rays, psychological factors, etc. I think it is possible that, a hundred years from now, no human will have gone to Mars; that we are up against something tougher than a lot of people; that our descendants may look at Mars as something forever out of reach. But of course going to Mars is nothing much compared to traveling even to the nearest star. You get into the fact that, unless there is a way to avoid the speed-of-light barrier, likely interstellar travel is an impossibility. The warp drives, the hyperspace, etc. that sf authors invoke may have little more reality than magic carpets. What, then, will be the effects on people if, two centuries from now, humans have still never set foot on any extraterrestrial object but the moon? Because right now a great many people take it for granted that we will. I'm not at all sure about that.

One more than I wonder about has to do with evolution. I speak subject to correct, but to this day it seems that experimental science as opposed to neo-Darwinian faith runs up against barriers -- a species can change, up to a point, but there seem to be limits that cannot be passed due to sterility, genetic disease, etc. If neo-Darwinism is true, it should be possible to bring about evolution from one species into a new one, but my understanding is that this has never been observed, and the fossil record is not quite so compelling as it "ought to be" if neo-Darwinism is true. Yes, I'm aware of the "horse sequence," for example. But in fact the existence of these various fossils proves nothing about an actual smooth line of evolution; and as I said, the experiments with breeding that have been done seem to militate against the idea. A good friend has often regaled me with accounts of the problems that pedigree dog breeders run into in this regard.

So I think a book on this theme could be quite interesting; something with no particular axe to grind.

Posted by: Major Wootton | December 16, 2007 5:55 PM

Corrections above: "people were" not "where" and "I don't think the" not "I don't the." As Frankin says, no spell or grammar checkers are ever injured in the making of my posts!

One last thing: The book that I believe must be written is on education.

When I think about the old conveyer belt I was educated on versus the amazing stuff I've seen going on in the last decade, I just feel sad. It was like child abuse. The educational gap between the haves and have-nots is so growing so fast I'm terrified to imagine the wealth gap and potental social disunity coming ahead.

It's a pity that 99.9% of education books floating around are, bluntly, crap. Worthy ed books can be counted on one hand, and none of them are practical, how-to books. I swear I'm going to write such a book myself if somebody can't get off their butt and do soon.

Posted by: M_David | December 16, 2007 7:19 PM

A decent, detailed, _objective_ history of the Vietnam War, covering both Vietnam itself as well as the US home front.

I do not expect to see such a history written before the passing of the Boomers. Perhaps if I'm lucky, I'll get to read it in my lifetime.

Posted by: MI | December 16, 2007 9:28 PM

"For example: to start with something easy, we know that people are taller, on average, now than a century or two ago. But people are not simply going to keep getting taller. Someone else can give you the math for that. Again, people are living longer. But I am not at all convinced that people are going to live, on average, much longer than they do now. If that makes sense, what's the upper limit?"

From what I've read about the archeology of modern Europe, whatever it is, we've already reached it. People don't just keep getting taller. The average Londoner was evidently taller during the 15th and 17th centuries than during the 18th and 19th. Something to do with the switch from beer to tea.

Posted by: Marian Neudel | December 16, 2007 9:53 PM

For some reason, my first post was censored ...

A book on the functionality of people with mental illness in the modern American workplace (and the prejudices/stigma remaining against them), with special emphasis on the Americans with Disabilities Act and Congress' failure to pass mental health parity.

Posted by: Larry Parker | December 16, 2007 11:33 PM

Gang, please quit thinking that you're being "censored"...trust me, nobody's trying to gag you.

Rod you take all the fun out of it, dammit.

The only reason I post here is for the chance of getting censored. Can't you just pretend and do it once in a while and make us feel, like, important? Just for Christmas?

Posted by: M_David | December 17, 2007 1:02 AM

Larry, I'd love to see a book on "the functionality of people with mental illness in the American workplace," too, but I'd extend that to a discussion of the amount of undiagnosed and untreated mental illness in the workplace, and the effect that it has. We talk about mental illness, but I don't think most people know what mental health looks like! It's "normal" to be depressed all the time and never talk about it; to be anxious all the time, to such an extent that it promotes insomnia, cardiovascular and gastric/intestinal diseases; to be addicted or have covertly obsessive compulsive behaviors; to have fits of rage against loved ones or random strangers on the highway, and so forth. If people ever even notice their own behavior, they don't say "Holy cow, what is going on here? I need to fix this!" Instead, not so religious people say "Well, I'm only human." Catholics tend to blame "original sin," and fundies blame it on the Devil. You may actually be one of the saner people around, simply because you've recognized that you have a problem and are doing something to deal with it.

Posted by: sigaliris | December 17, 2007 9:25 AM

On topic, I'd like to find a good book that logically reconciles Christianity as we know it and the Biblical Christ.

Books on saints.

The rest of us are not logically able to reconcile our lives to the Bibical Christ.

Posted by: M_David | December 17, 2007 9:46 AM

Rod:

And, if you'll notice, when I realized on the next thread it was the spam filter and not you, I made a joke about it ...

Posted by: Larry Parker | December 17, 2007 12:24 PM

Oh, yeah, Larry, I understand that you want a more specific and targeted book. Which I'd also be interested in reading.

Another one I'd like to read is a serious study of learning technologies and methodology, to assess what actually works in conveying information from one mind to another. Based on my experience with the educational system, I'd say the traditional public school methods simply don't work. When kids learn something, it is by accident, or due to outside forces. Knowledge has been available for years now about different strategies that work better, but has not been effectively implemented. I want a definitive study that would make it easy for people to access this knowledge. Franklin, I know you have strong opinions about this, so I'll point out that I'm not saying that learning never takes place in a public school--just that when it does, it is owed to something other than the enforced structure, often to the personal talent and intuition of a gifted teacher.

Posted by: sigaliris | December 17, 2007 12:56 PM

Harvey,
I'm only writing this to beat someone else to it-- that book you seek is called the Bible. There! Now the thunder is stolen. Insane Kitten

Hmmmmm, that isn't the solution, that's the cause of the problem.

I'll bet you can't show me a version of Christianity that I can't Biblically show in serious error. Serously.

Look at Muhammad, he evidently read the Bible and saw all the confusion and wrote his book without all the ifs ands and buts that make Christianity so entertaining.

Posted by: harvey lacey | December 17, 2007 7:31 PM

Jim:

That's a terrific book. Except ...

Those are lessons I don't think you can learn from a book. Unfortunately, you're stuck living them like everyone else.

The last time I saw a book like that was, well, when I was in college. It was called "Life 101." And it was written by Peter McWilliams, a medical marijuana activist; and John-Roger, a guru (literally) who McWilliams later sued.

Posted by: Larry Parker | December 18, 2007 12:27 AM

"Ditto for the U S Civil War" -- (a political history of the events leading up to it)

While not exhaustive, THE FATE OF THEIR COUNTRY by Michael F. Holt is a good brief but incisive study of the politics leading up to the war. Holt is quite balanced in his presentation, pointing out both the weaknesses and strengths of all the parties involved. He's also written a scholarly work on the politics of the 1850's which I haven't read.

Some folks have taken issue with Holt's seeming dismissal of slavery as the cause of the war. I find this to be incorrect. Holt doesn't dismiss slavery, but instead focuses on the politics surrounding that issue, rather than the issue itself. I don't accept Holt's thesis, i.e., that the ultimate causes of the war were political (I believe they were primarily cultural and economic), but you don't need to accept his thesis to gain a lot of valuable info from the book about the politics of the time, and how they played a role in events leading up to the conflict.

Posted by: Rob G. | December 18, 2007 7:51 AM

"Look at Muhammad, he evidently read the Bible and saw all the confusion and wrote his book without all the ifs ands and buts that make Christianity so entertaining."

Ifs, ands, and buts are unavoidable when humans are dealing with and thinking about the Divine. You seem to want a religion with no wriggle room or no mystery, Harvey, something with every 'I' dotted and every 'T' crossed. A religion, which says like the Pharoah in THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, "So let it be written -- so let it be done!" If that's the way you think religion ought to be, may I suggest either Islam, which you have mentioned already, or hyper-Calvinism.

Posted by: Rob G. | December 18, 2007 8:09 AM

Ifs, ands, and buts are unavoidable when humans are dealing with and thinking about the Divine. You seem to want a religion with no wriggle room or no mystery, Harvey, something with every 'I' dotted and every 'T' crossed. A religion, which says like the Pharoah in THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, "So let it be written -- so let it be done!" If that's the way you think religion ought to be, may I suggest either Islam, which you have mentioned already, or hyper-Calvinism. Posted by: Rob G.

No Rob. I don't need a religion with all the "i" dotted and every "t" crossed. But I do believe that those who want to rule their world and everyone in it by their faith do.

We only have to look at our place as a nation right now. I believe we can all agree that we're here because the evangelicals and their Christian brothers jumped on the Bush wagon of a more righteous White House. Righteous is as righteous does. This White House is righteous in the same manner as Iran.

Now we look at this election and guess what? Those who were like the sheep dogs leading the sheep to slaughter for Bush are now looking for a newer better more Christian candidate. It's almost like they live in homes without mirrors. Surely if they encountered a mirror they could see that Rove, Bush, Cheney and company wouldn't have had the opportunity to ravage our great nation if they hadn't been voted into place by the righteous.

Posted by: harvey lacey | December 18, 2007 8:36 AM

Rob, from our discussions I know that you regard a difference about nominalism vs. realism as pretty much the original sin that separates the Orthodox from erring Roman Catholicism and the many Protestantism that derive from it. So as long as you are wishing for this book, wish too that it would be intelligible to the many readers who (iny our view) need to read it, but find authors who do deal with it (Bouyer is the one I remember you especially recommending) too tough.

Posted by: Major Wootton | December 18, 2007 10:54 AM

Nominalists of the world, unite. You have nothing to lose but your Platonic Ideas. I visited the realm of the universals and all I got was this lousy particular t-shirt, which has properties that cause me to term it "green." : )

Posted by: sigaliris | December 18, 2007 11:55 AM

to Rob G --

You're right, MacPherson is more sympathetic to the North, but IMHO, he's right on just about all the major issues. (But it wouldn't take anyone very long to discovery that I have no sympathy for the Confederacy).

Posted by: franz | December 18, 2007 1:08 PM