Christians and Judaism

A Christian ought to ponder seriously the tremendous implications of a process begun early in Christian history. I mean the conscious or unconscious dejudaization of Christianity, affecting the Church’s way of thinking, its inner life as well as its relationship to the past and present reality of Israel – the father and mother of the very being of Christianity. The children did not arise to call the mother blessed; instead they called the mother blind. Some theologians continue to act as if they did not know the meaning of “honor your father and mother”; others, anxious to prove the superiority of the church, speak as if they suffered from a spiritual Oedipus complex.

A Christian ought to realize that a world without Israel will be a world without the God of Israel.

-- Abraham Joshua Heschel

The Second Commandment

The second commandment implies more than the prohibition of images; it implies rejection of all visible symbols for God; not only images fashioned by man but also of “any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.”

And yet there is something in the world that the Bible does regard as a symbol of God. It is not a temple or a tree, it is not a statue or a star. The symbol of God is man, every man. God created man in His image, in His likeness.

-- Abraham Joshua Heschel

The Closing of the Western Mind by Charles Freeman

Aristotle (Metaphysics, quoted in “The Closing of the Western Mind”, by Charles Freeman)

The investigation of truth is in one way hard, in another easy. An indication of this is found in the fact that no one is able to attain the truth adequately, while, on the other hand, no one fails entirely, but everyone says something true about the nature of things, and while individually the contribute little or nothing to the truth, by the union of all a considerable amount is amassed.

“The Closing of the Western Mind”, Charles Freeman, pp 21-22.

While Aristotle believed that an underlying unity would be found to all knowledge, he accepted that in the present state of knowledge much must remain provisional and unsure. Take, for example, a difficult question in the natural world, how to differentiate between “plants” and “animals.” A dogmatic scientist might have drawn up some arbitrary rules and simply classified each organism as one or the other. Aristotle realized that this was to avoid the real issue. He took some examples from the marine world, the sponge, the jellyfish, sea anemones, razor shells. He noted that when a sponge was pulled from a rock to which it was attached, it reacted by clinging to the rock. So perhaps it was some kind of animal. Yet it could not live detached from the rock, as an animal would. Jellyfish, on the other hand, lived as detached organisms but did not, so far as Aristotle could see, have any perception. They are like plants but, unlike other plants, do not stay attached to a base. Should one create a separate category, “plants which are detached,” or does one accept that it is possible to be an animal without having perception? Aristotle’s genius lay in realizing that these issues had to be worked out undogmatically, that observation had to continue and that sometimes the boundaries between categories would have to be redrawn as a result. In the natural world one could seldom, perhaps never, talk with absolute certainty in the face of the mass of living organisms that had to be categorized. It was this openness to the provisional nature of knowledge that helps make Aristotle one of the truly great philosophers.

Aristotle also firmly believed that knowledge would be cumulative from generation to generation, and this process was supported by the competitive nature of Greek science. Take, for example, the idea of spontaneous generation. Aristotle first posited the concept after he had tried in vain to find out how eels spawned. He could find elvers, young eels, but no sign of what they grew from. The answer was straightforward if remarkable – eels spawned in the Bermudas and the young swam back to Europe – but, of course, this was well beyond any possibility of discovery in the fourth century B.C. The act of spawning was not observed for the first time until the 1920s. So the idea of spontaneous generation, from mud in the case of eels, was one possibility. Aristotle’s successor Theophrastus took the matter further. He examined many different cases of apparent spontaneous generation in plants and showed that, in fact, there were often tiny seeds from which plants grew. He noted too that spontaneous generation seemed to take place when the earth was warmed. Even though he could not grasp the importance of this as we can today, he still recorded it as part of his investigation. He concluded by leaving the issue open: “More accurate investigation must be made of the subject and the matter in which spontaneous generation takes place be thoroughly inquired into … This is why an experienced person is needed to gather it [the evidence], who has the ability to observe the proper season and recognise the seed itself.” For Theophrastus it remained a possibility that every form of spontaneous generation would one day be explained, although he insisted that the concept remain in place until it was actually disproved by empirical observation. He was also insistent on the importance of professional expertise, another important development in the history of science.

Fundamentalism ... a problem with all religions

From the conclusion of Fundamentalism: The Search for Meaning, by Malise Ruthven

The attacks of 9/11 revealed the dangers of [the] apocalyptic outlook. … The leaders were not ignorant young men from a deprived region of the world protesting against economic injustices, but privileged enragés who could have expected to achieve high-status jobs in fields like medicine, engineering, and architecture. Their rage was theological: the God of Battles who looms so largely in the Abrahamic imagination had let them down disastrously. ‘Their faith in the benign and compassionate deity of Islam had begun to wobble. Their final act was not a gesture of Islamic heroism, but of Nietzchean despair.’ (“A Fury for God: The Islamist Attack on America”, by Malise Ruthven, p. 132-133) The same mentality exists in the Western branch of what is often called fundamentalism – but might be better described as ‘Abrahamic apocalypticism’. Christian premillenialists are theological refugees in a world they no longer control. In America, fortunately, their avenues of expression usually fall short of violence (though there have been physical attacks by fundamentalists on doctors performing abortions). They have a baleful influence on American foreign policy, by tilting it towards the Jewish state which they aim eventually to obliterate, by converting ‘righteous’ Jews to Christ. They have damaged the education of American children in some places by adding ‘scientific creationism’ to the curriculum. They inconvenience some women – especially poor women with limited access to travel – by making abortion illegal in certain states. On a planetary level they are selfish, greedy, and stupid, damaging the environment by the excessive use of energy and lobbying against environmental controls. What is the point of saving the planet, they argue, if Jesus is arriving tomorrow?

American fundamentalists are a headache, a thorn in flesh of the bien-pensant liberals, the subject of bemused concern to ‘Old Europeans’ who have experienced too many real catastrophes to yearn for Armageddon. Given that premillenialism and its associated theologies are significant components of American policy, especially under Republican administrations, it seems fair to state that Protestant fundamentalism is a dangerous religion. Whatever spiritual benefits individuals may have gained by taking Jesus as their ‘personal saviour’ the apocalyptic fantasies harboured by born-again Christians have a negative impact on public policy. Because of its impact on the environment and its baleful role in the Middle East, America’s religiosity is a problem.

Our endangered values

… one of the characteristics of fundamentalists is to forgo discussion or negotiation to resolve differences, interpreting this as a sign of weakness in adhering to their own principles. The most telltale distinction between Republicans and Democrats is their preference between ways of resolving controversial international issues – reliance on force, or diplomacy.

…

What are our best responses? Is it better to cherish our historic role as the great champion of human rights, or to abandon our high domestic and international standards in response to threats? Is it better to set a firm example of reducing reliance on nuclear weapons and their further proliferation, or to insist on our right (and that of others) to retain our arsenals, expand them, and therefore abrogate or derogate control agreements negotiated for many decades? Are we best served by espousing peace as a national priority unless our security is threatened, or by proclaiming an unabridged right to attack other nations unilaterally to change an unsavory regime or for other purposes? Is declaration of “You are either with us or against us” superior to forming alliances based on a clear comprehension of mutual interests? When there are serious differences with other nations, is it best to permit direct negotiations to resolve the problems, or to brand those who differ as international pariahs – and to refuse to permit such discussions?

Most of these questions are already being answered by our government’s policies – policies that are predicated on the basic premises of fundamentalism. It is not yet clear if the American people approve.

-- Jimmy Carter, Our Endangered Values, p 161-163

Wayward Christian Soldiers, by Charles Marsh

I read this book in less than two (week) days -- breakneck speed for me, since I still work 8+ hours/day (not counting commuting, etc). It gives voice to my own feelings, which border on constant outrage (sometimes I'm merely mad).

The middle of the book gives a sobering prescription for what the true evangelical church should be about in the post-Bush era, and I intend to reread that part in particular. However, the first chapters and the last give voice to what is for me something maddeningly painful. It has been so painful in fact that of late I'm finding that I am withdrawing from discussions of the situation. Nevertheless, in reading this book I found myself wanting to buy a copy for every "evangelical Christian" Bush supporter I know, and sit them down and yell at them and say "read this! See what you have done!" But that's not right, I know.

Years, decades ago, I ceased going to "Christian" bookstores because I was grossed out by the trinkets and tchotchkie, the volume of which dwarfed that of the (mostly intellectually pamblumesque) books. I don't enter them because I consider my time more valuable than to spend it deciding I don't need such things as The Prayer of Jabez or the collected works of Joel Osteen. Even so, Marsh tells of a recent visit to such a "Christian" bookstore after the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom (sic).

I had gone to one fo my local Christian bookstores to find a Bible for my goddaughter. On a whim, I also decided to look for a Holy Spirit lapel pin, the kind that had always been easy to find in the display case in the front. Many people in my church and in the plaxes where I traveled had been wearing the American flag in their lapel for months now. It seemed like a pretty good time for Christians to put the Spirit back on. But the doves were nowhere in site. ... I was greeted instead by a full assortment of patriotic accessories -- red-white-and-blue ties, bandanas, ... "I support our troops" ribbons, ... and an extraordinary cross and flag bangle with the two images welded together and interlocked. ... I asked the clerk behind the counter where the doves had gone. ... The man's response was jarring ... an apt theological summation of the current religious age. "They're in the back with the other discounted items."

It would be well if the sermon in every pulpit this next Sunday was merely a reading of the first chapter, "On Being a Christian After Bush."

Franklin Graham boasted that the American invasion of Iraq opened up exciting new opportunities for missions to non-Christian Arabs. But this is not what the Hebrew prophets or the Christian teachers mean by righteousness and discipleship. In fact, this grotesque notion -- that preemptive war and the destruction of innocent life pave the way for the preaching of the good news -- strikes me as a mockery of the cross and a betrayal of the Christian's baptism into the body of Christ. ...

If Franklin Graham speaks truthfully of the Christian faith and its mission in the world -- as many evangelicals seem to believe -- the we should have none of it. [Amen!] We should rather join the ranks of the righteous unbelievers and bighearted humanists who rage against cruelty and oppression with the intensity of people who live fully in this world. I am certain that it would be better for Christians to stand in solidarity with compassionate atheists and agnostics, firmly resolved against injustice and cruelty, that to sing "Amazing Grace" with the heroic masses who cannot tell the difference between the cross and the flag. ...

And while we are on the subject, may I please as a favor of the decent men and women who edit the magazine Christianity Today? The next time Franklin Graham utters a remark so completely contrary to the spirit of Christ, please denounce it with the same clarity that your columnists have brought to their criticisms of Bishop Spong's heterodox views, Bill Clinton's lechery, or Mark Felt's deathbed revelation that he was Watergate's Deep Throat.

Perhaps the last quoted paragraph is the reason Books and Culture, a CT spinoff, gave this book a sniff-sniff, harrumph-harrumph review. I dropped my CT subscription some decades back, figuring I could get enough "God's Own Party" rhetoric from the MSM; nothing yet to regret in that department.

UK article on sun link to climate change: NOT

Solar activity 'not the cause of global warming'

By Steve Connor, Science Editor

Published: 11 July 2007

Claims that increased solar activity is the cause of global warming - rather than man-made greenhouse gases - have been comprehensively disproved by a detailed study of the Sun.

Scientists have delivered the final blow to the theory that recent global warming can be explained by variations in the natural cycles of the Sun - a favourite refuge for climate sceptics who dismiss the influence of greenhouse-gas emissions.

An analysis of the records of all of the Sun's activities over the past few decades - such as sunspot cycles and magnetic fields - shows that since 1985 solar activity has decreased significantly, while global warming has continued to increase.

Mike Lockwood, of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Chilton, Oxfordshire, said: "In 1985, the Sun did a U-turn in every respect. It no longer went in the right direction to contribute to global warming. We think it's almost completely conclusive proof that the Sun does not account for the recent increases in global warming."

The study, published today in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society A, shows there is no doubt that solar activity over the past 20 years has run in the opposite direction to global warming, and therefore cannot explain rises in average global temperatures.

Dr Lockwood and his colleague Claus Fröhlich, of the World Radiation Centre in Davos Dorf, Switzerland, have produced the most powerful counter argument to suggestions that current warming is part of the natural cycle of solar activities. "There is considerable evidence for solar influence on Earth's pre-industrial climate, and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial change in the first half of the last century," they write.

However, since about 1940 there has been no evidence to suggest that increases in global average temperatures were caused by solar activity. "Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified," the two scientists said.

The theory that past changes in solar activity may have explained some changes in the climate before the industrial revolution is not in dispute. In previous centuries, for instance, notably between about 1420 and 1570, when the Vikings had to abandon their Greenland settlements, solar minima corresponded with unusually cool weather, such as the "little ice age" of the 17th century.

But climate sceptics have exploited this to dispute the idea that man-made emissions are responsible for global warming. In the recent Channel 4 programme The Great Global Warming Swindle, the rise in solar activity over the latter half of the 20th century was erroneously presented as perfectly matching the rise in global average temperatures.

Dr Lockwood said he was outraged when he saw the documentary, because of the way the programme-makers used graphs of temperature rises and sunspot cycles that were cut off in the 1980s, when the two trends went in the opposite direction.

"The trouble is that the theory of solar activity and climate was being misappropriated to apply to modern-day warming. The sceptics were taking perfectly good science and bringing it into disrespect," Dr Lockwood said.

The Royal Society said yesterday: "There is a small minority which is seeking to confuse the public on the causes of climate change. They are often misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the evidence is getting stronger every day."

'No sun link' to climate change

By Richard Black BBC Environment Correspondent

Scientists have been measuring the frequency of solar flares

A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.

It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.

It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.

Writing in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings A, the researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present.

"This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.

Dr Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Britain's Channel Four earlier this year, which featured the cosmic ray hypothesis.

"All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that," he told the BBC News website.

"You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," he said.

Warming trend

The scientists' main approach on this new analysis was simple; to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature, which has risen by about 0.4C over the period.

The Sun varies on a cycle of about 11 years between periods of high and low activity.

But that cycle comes on top of longer-term trends; and most of the 20th Century saw a slight but steady increase in solar output.

But in about 1985, that trend appears to have reversed, with solar output declining.

This paper re-enforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity Dr Piers Forster

Yet this period has seen temperatures rise as fast as, if not faster than, at any time during the previous 100 years.

"This paper re-enforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment of climate science.

Cosmic relief

The IPCC's February summary report concluded that greenhouse gases were about 13 times more responsible than solar changes for rising global temperatures.

But the organisation was criticised in some quarters for not taking into account the cosmic ray hypothesis, developed among others by Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen of the Danish National Space Center.

Their theory holds that cosmic rays help clouds to form by providing tiny particles around which water vapour can condense. Overall, clouds cool the Earth.

During periods of active solar activity, cosmic rays are partially blocked by the Sun's more intense magnetic field. Cloud formation diminishes, and the Earth warms.

Mike Lockwood's analysis appears to have put a large, probably fatal nail in this intriguing and elegant hypothesis.

He said: "I do think there is a cosmic ray effect on cloud cover. It works in clean maritime air where there isn't much else for water vapour to condense around.

"It might even have had a significant effect on pre-industrial climate. But you cannot apply it to what we're seeing now, because we're in a completely different ball game."

Drs Svensmark and Friis-Christensen could not be reached for comment.

Cosmic Rays and Global Warming

One of the more hair-brained (in my opinion) schemes to "explain" global warming as something other than a human induced phenomenon (not to say complete and utter disaster in the making) is the idea that it is caused and/or mitigated by fluctuations in cloud cover governed by cosmic rays which are in turned governed by the sunspot cycle. This is a take-down of that argument (to me this argument should be to cosmic ray people much like cold fusion phenomenon was to nuclear people -- two minutes of ratiocination, accompanied perhaps by a back-of-the-envelope-calculation or two, leads to the conclusion that someone has been doing more smokin' than science). Nevertheless serious scientists feel compelled to deal with this simply because, I suppose, this is one of many "ideas" that are placed before a public that does not have the intellectual tools to deal in the most elementary and commonsense fashion with such a claim.

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/no-link-between.html

The link above discusses this paper:

Cosmic Rays and Global Warming