I just have to shake my head at the e-mails I get from partisans. For instance, there’s this very nice man here in Columbia who is SUCH a liberal Democrat that he passes on all sorts of partisan nonsense, usually uncritically.
Such was the case with this rather obvious hoax that was debunked five years ago. He just sent it to me and the rest of his group on Sunday, with only a semi-declaimer, to the effect of "Received from a participant…"
Here’s the original 2001 e-mail, passed on this past week as is. See if you think anyone who wasn’t seriously overcome with partisanship could take it seriously:
In a report published Monday, the Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania detailed its findings of a four month study of the intelligence quotient of President George W. Bush.
Since 1973, the Lovenstein Institute has published it’s research to the education community on each new president, which includes the famous "IQ" report among others.
According to statements in the report, there have been twelve presidents over the past 50 years, from F. D. Roosevelt to G. W. Bush who were all rated based on scholarly achievements, writings that they alone produced without aid of staff, their ability to speak with clarity, and several other psychological factors which were then scored in the Swanson/Crain system of intelligence ranking.
The study determined the following IQs of each president as accurate to within five percentage points:
147 .. Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
132 .. Harry Truman (D)
122 .. Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
174 .. John F. Kennedy (D)
126 .. Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
155 .. Richard M. Nixon (R)
121 .. Gerald Ford (R)
175 .. James E. Carter (D)
105 .. Ronald Reagan (R)
098 .. George HW Bush (R)
182 .. William J. Clinton (D)
091 .. George W. Bush (R)or, in IQ order:
182 .. William J. Clinton (D)
175 .. James E. Carter (D)
174 .. John F. Kennedy (D)
155 .. Richard M. Nixon (R)
147 .. Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
132 .. Harry Truman (D)
126 .. Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
122 .. Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
121 .. Gerald Ford (R)
105 .. Ronald Reagan (R)
098 .. George HW Bush (R)
091 .. George W. Bush (R)The six Republican presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of 115.5, with President Nixon having the highest IQ, at 155. President G. W. Bush was rated the lowest of all the Republicans with an IQ of 91. The six Democrat presidents had IQs with an average of 156, with President Clinton having the highest IQ, at 182. President Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126. No president other than Carter (D) has released his actual IQ, 176.
Among comments made concerning the specific testing of President GW Bush, his low ratings were due to his apparent difficulty to command the English language in public statements, his limited use of vocabulary (6,500 words for Bush versus an average of 11,000 words for other presidents), his lack of scholarly achievements other than a basic MBA, and an absence of any body of work which could be studied on an intellectual basis. The complete report documents the methods and procedures used to arrive at these ratings, including depth of sentence structure and voice stress confidence analysis.
"All the Presidents prior to George W. Bush had a least one book under their belt, and most had written several white papers during their education or early careers. Not so with President Bush," Dr. Lovenstein said. "He has no published works or writings, so in many ways that made it more difficult to arrive at an assessment. We had to rely more heavily on transcripts of his unscripted public speaking."
The Lovenstein Institute of Scranton Pennsylvania think tank includes high caliber historians, psychiatrists, sociologists, scientists in human behavior, and psychologists. Among their ranks are Dr. Werner R. Lovenstein, world-renowned sociologist, and Professor Patricia F. Dilliams, a world-respected psychiatrist.
Published works? By that standard, Jesus would have been a moron.
Anyway, here’s what snopes.com had to say about it.
No,this isn’t a real news report, nor does it describe a real study. There isn’t a "Lovenstein Institute" in Scranton, Pennsylvania (or anywhere else in the USA), nor do any of the people quoted in the story exist…
And it goes on and on in that vein, as you can find by the simple expedient of following the link already provided. I removed the rest of the quote because a) the post was kinda long and b) I received this comment:
This blog entry includes an unauthorized reproduction of copyright-protected material taken from http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm
Please remove this material from your blog promptly.
That note itself is probably a hoax — but being in the business I’m in, I suppose I should take such points seriously. Do unto others and so forth. And I did go look at the main page, and it does say it’s copyrighted. So. Follow the link.
I don’t guess I’ll hear complaints from the originator of the bogus e-mail, but you never know.
Related Posts
Some of the Cindy Sheehan types who blog here are smart enough to know this thing was a hoax, but would love to believe it. These are the same people, who, knowing that the US military forces have killed upwards of 50,000 terrorists, have never lost one single “battle” in Iraq, while losing 3,000 on our side, proudly proclaim we have lost in Iraq. And this is while fighting in a politically correct manner so we dont disturb funerals or armed mosques. Unbelievable.
Dave, do you believe W is as smart as Clinton? If you’re realistic and admit he’s not, do you believe he’s even close?
Another example of professionals being duped by hoax emails: In a Hilary Clinton-Lazio debate, the candidates were asked about the rumor of a new tax to be levied on emails. Neither supported it.
I guess it’s my lack of intelligence, but I don’t understand the reference to Jesus. It’s pretty certain that he was fluent in Aramaic, Hebrew, probably Greek, and at least some Latin as well, so I doubt I would limit him to 6500 vocabulary words.
Randy, Clinton is intellectually or you could say factually smart, but he is ethically very dumb and his moral compass is obviously way off. So if intelligence is purely judged as a matter of how many facts you know, Clinton is smarter,if it includes how you interpret and apply those facts, W is the better man.
So, cocaine addiction and use is less of a moral blight than having a sexual affair outside of your marriage?
Judge not lest ye be considered a typical, hypocritical, evangelical “Christian.”
partisanspartisanspartisanspartisanspartisans
partisanspartisanspartisanspartisanspartisans
partisanspartisanspartisanspartisanspartisans
partisanspartisanspartisanspartisanspartisans
partisanspartisanspartisanspartisanspartisans
partisanspartisanspartisanspartisanspartisans
partisanspartisanspartisanspartisanspartisans
partisanspartisanspartisanspartisanspartisans
partisanspartisanspartisanspartisanspartisans
partisanspartisanspartisanspartisanspartisans
partisanspartisanspartisanspartisanspartisans
partisanspartisanspartisanspartisanspartisans
partisanspartisanspartisanspartisanspartisans
Jan-Dec
The word has officially been rendered meaningless.
Yes, I’m terribly partisan to common sense and simple logic.
Cap,my post was for BW.He uses the word partisan(or some variation)so often,that it just sounds goofy,as in;”I just have to shake my head at the e-mails I get from partisans.He might have just as well said “Parisians”.It doesn’t work anymore.
I’ve never gotten a good e-mail from a Parisian, either, to the best of my recollection.
Herb, I was just reacting to the bit about how many books published. Even though this is a hoax, in the real world academics place WAY too much emphasis on that as a measurement of one’s intellectual worth. And when they do, I tend to think first of Jesus, who wrote nothing that we know of — aside from what he scribbled in the sand that time.
Dave, unless you consider every Iraqi, by definition, a “terrorist” then the U.S. can’t credibly claim to have killed anywhere near 50,000 terrorists in Iraq.
Frankly, I doubt that there are even 50,000 Islamic terrorists in the world today but if Bush keeps giving AQ free propaganda he may succeed in radicalizing 50,000 Muslims by the blessed end of his train wreck.
I guess that I forgot your Muslim Final Solution. I suppose that Adolf Eichmann disclaimed any personal hatred of Jews like you claim to have no animosity for Muslims. “Sorry, just gotta kill every potential terrorist who won’t convert to Christianity.”
Morality and intelligence are different characteristics. Nice try with the blurring of the subject.
Immorality can be manifested in areas aside from sexual misconduct. The dubious case made for the war by the Bush administration atleast skirts the boundary. Attacking Americans as unpatriotic because they don’t support his war is another example. This is especially true when it involves 2800+ American deaths and tens of thousands wounded or emotionally scarred.
Don’t you suppose he meant to say, “50,000 enemy combatants” or some such? That would not be a surprising number, if you start with Saddam’s army, then count the native insurgents AND the jihadists — and both of the latter two fit the definition of “terrorist.”
Brad and RTH are both correct in a sense on this. Let’s call it 50,000 “enemy combatants.” Subtract Saddam’s army, and call the remainder terrorists if you like. 25,000? The obvious question: how many of these individuals could have been called terrorists prior to March 20, 2003? Or September 11, 2001?
Draw your own conclusions.
I’ll ask again, if we are fighting an Iraqi War who is the enemy? Who are we fighting?
“…then count the native insurgents AND the jihadists — and both of the latter two fit the definition of “terrorist.”
Unreal!
We invaded their country. What did you think that they were going to do? What would you do if some foreign power defeated our army and occupied the United States? If you fight foreigners by any means available, are you then a “terrorist”?
Even if you accept the idea that we invaded Iraq because of supposed weapons of mass destruction that presumably posed a threat to the US, then the second that we found that there were no WMDs we should have set a date for withdraw.
The truth is that Bush and Cheney planned to invade Iraq before they ever took office and they used 9/11 as an excuse to do so. They wanted to use Iraq as their little neo-conservative social experiment test tube, and the experiment failed-and it failed miserably. Our actions are directly responsible for inciting a civil war among the different Iraqi factions. We are responsible for the deaths of tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of the Iraqi people. We are responsible for the deaths or injuries of tens of thousands of American soldiers. We are responsible because we allowed Bush and Cheney to do it.
Congress needs to impeach Bush and Cheney.
Brad Warthen needs to take responsibility for his actions by admitting that he was wrong.
Phillip – Most if not all of the combatants or terrorists were radically anti-American, anti-democracy, anti-freedom types even before 9-11. These are the people who went into the streets with Saddam and celebrated our 9-11. Worldwide, there are some 1 billion plus Muslims, with estimates I have seen of about 10% who are of that mind of terrorist. That equates to 100 million radical types who abhor our type of life, government, freedoms, etc. That number may be high, it may be low, who really knows. In the UK alone, over 10% of Muslim UK citizens thought their 7-11 was justifiable. This is what we are dealing with. Do we need to kill 1 billion Muslims, no, in spite of Hurl trying to pin genocide on me, that isnt what I would do. But we should track down and imprison or kill ALL who would destroy our nation and way of life. How much more simple can it be? I see Afghan and Iraq as just the beginning, because the goals of Al Qaeda and Wahhabism arent going away even if we declared total victory in both those nations tomorrow morning. Bush said it correctly, this is very long term, and the real question is are we like the French and want to appease and tolerate this danger, or do we prevail over it? The Bush legacy will be that we prevail. Time will tell what his successors decide to do.
Randy – if you narrowly focus on this as some isolated event focused on Iraq only, you are not seeing the larger picture of this. We are fighting a worldwide movement, not a group of Iraqis.
Dave helpfully expands our definition of “terrorist,” from those who ACTUALLY take up arms and commit atrocities against innocent civilians to include those who are simply anti-American “types,” who are “of that mind of terrorist.” If you “abhor our type of life” that’s good enough for Dave…hey, don’t bother learning how to rig an IED because you’re already a terrorist in his book.
Let’s see, now…there are an estimated 2 billion plus Christians in the world today. Let’s say that out of every 2000 Christians, you’ll find one, just one, who “abhors” the Muslim “way of life.” By the impeccable logic displayed above, that means that moderate and peace-loving Muslims throughout the world should figure there are about one million Christian “terrorists” walking around.
“How much more simple can it be?” I don’t know, ask George W. Bush. Evidently not as simple as it looked to him once upon a time.
“We should track down and imprison or kill ALL who would destroy our nation and way of life.” But, since it’s hard to find someone who’s merely an anti-democracy, anti-freedom “type” without performing a Vulcan mind-meld, we need to move these people from hating America in thought to actually hating America in deed, right? So the more Muslims who actually DO take up terrorism, the better job we’re doing in terms of our foreign policy, right? Hey, you’re right! This IS easy, it IS simple! What could I have been thinking?
9/11 was carried out by 19 people. OK, if you add together all the support teams, training, etc., maybe fifty or sixty people. Dave estimates perhaps 100 million “radical types” which equals “terrorist” in his thinking. If his definition of “prevail” in the war on terror means his benchmark of “imprison[ing] or kill[ing] all who WOULD (my emphasis) destroy our way of life,” then eliminating 99,999,950 people could still leave us with another 9/11.
You readers out there who might be emotionally inclined to go along with Dave’s way of thinking, or the President’s, or Brad’s…PLEASE stop to think about the illogical dead-end this way of thinking takes you. Use your minds. No, sadly, it’s not “simple” at all, but it’s well within the capacity of peace-loving Americans with an understanding of what REALLY makes this country powerful and great to address effectively.
Today is the 65th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor. It’s worth remembering today how America unites when it responds to unprovoked attack, as it did with Pearl Harbor and with 9/11 against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, and by contrast, how fractured the country has become as the result of pursuing a war of choice against a country that did not attack us.
“We should track down and imprison or kill ALL who would destroy our nation and way of life.” But, since it’s hard to find someone who’s merely an anti-democracy, anti-freedom “type” without performing a Vulcan mind-meld, we need to move these people from hating America in thought to actually hating America in deed, right?
By this definition Lee is a terrorist.
While his grasp of basic American history combined with his multiple pecadilloes certainly are “terrible,” I wouldn’t go so far as to call Lee a terrorist. Besides that, I think he’s simply too lazy to be one.
He’d much rather sit on his “porch” while perpetually shaking his metaphorical fist at us punk-kids who are ruining the world with with our strict adherences to common sense and simple logic.
For the last time, Knave, please stop casting aspersions on the French. They didn’t cut and run in WWII. They were absolutely annihilated by a far better-equipped warrior culture. They were stomped like a narc at a biker rally.
When you’re literally lying dead and mangled, how do you fight onward? And they should be ashamed of this…why?!
My primary source for this is my grandpa who was present at this theater of battle. Do you have a better one which would excuse your lame, “comedic” equivalent of a fart joke?
It’s just so tired and uninspired. Besides that, your persistent downgrading of that culture is based on and supposedly excused by a premise that is simply uninformed and definitely not factual.
Dave, the actions we take should be aligned with the ultimate goals. If you don’t know who we are fighting in Iraq, how do you know this “war” is aligned with this world wide goal?
How is policiing a civil war aligned with the war on terrorism?
Phillip – Are you trying to depict the moral equivalence of Muslims and Christians. I will agree with you when “radical” Christians start bringing down airliners on suicide missions, or start strapping plastic explosive belts onto retarded children in order to massacre a handful of Jewish students on a school bus. Other than that, you have to be the most naive person, or close to it, in America. With your thinking, if only we could have arrested the small handful of people who helped the 19 hijackers, all of this silly war stuff could have been avoided.
And Randy, if there is a civil war in Iraq, guess who has instigated it and funded it. Iran, in the hopes that they can make sure the democracy does not succeed. I guess to the left we just give them a pass for funding the weapons to blow up our own US soldiers, after all, we pissed them off by going there, right?
Um, GW Bush is a radical “Christian” responsible for the deaths of, um, I don’t know 300,000 innocent Iraqis.
Although I never supported this Iraq war, I have trouble equating Bush with radical Muslim terrorists. Yes, a leader who starts an unjustified war (and a lot of wars aren’t justified) is morally culpable for it.
But there is a difference to terrorists, and it is important that we differentiate these things, instead of painting everything with a broad brush. Call me naive if you want, but I have a hard time believing that our government expected anything else but quick victory, and for the most part, a warm reception by grateful Iraqis. They never dreamed it would come to this.
Anyone who knew the situation was warning against going to war, but senior government officials are not known for listening to wise people who know the situation. They had an agenda that was driven by certain people, plus the naive assumption that the military can solve complex problems.
Dave asks, “Are you trying to depict the moral equivalence of Muslims and Christians?” Yes, Dave, absolutely, with all my heart and soul.
If I meet Dave and he says, “I am a Christian,” and I meet another man and he says, “I am a Muslim,” and that’s all I know about either man, I have no reason to think more or less highly of one or the other, but to respect each of the two as a fellow human being and passenger on this planet. I guess to Dave, judging a person on their deeds and not on their private beliefs makes me “naive.”
Terrorism is not new, though the modes have changed as surely as technology has altered every aspect of our lives today. Terrorism, like religious belief, is a product of the human mind and will, and is not inherent exclusively to any one religion or ideology, but can be adopted in the name of any belief, as indeed it has been throughout history.
Dave, do “Christians” who murder abortion doctors get a free pass from you?
9/11 was carried out by 19 people on the airplanes who committed suicide.
Other conspirators were thwarted and most escaped that day.
A huge network of other terrorists had executed other attacks on America during the Clinton years, and most had gotten away.
Much of that network of hijackers were trained in Afghanistan and Iraq, and most were killed or put out of business by our troops invading those two terrorist breeding grounds in 2002 and 2003.
Most of the trouble remaining in Iraq consists of 15,000 armed terrorists, and most of them in Sadar City. We could clean them out in 60 days, if the politicians would let our military do it.
The number of Americans killed in Iraq and Afghanistan are about the number killed in military training during the same number of years.
RTH – No, abortion doctor killers dont get a free pass, but how many abortion doctors have been killed. One maybe. That’s what I like about you, Phillip, and others, everyone is equally guilty or not guilty as the case may be. Your types place zero value in the truisms and morals of Christianity, because, after all, the Sun and Moon worshippers are just a different form of nutcases worshipping something that is silly and illogical. To liberals, there are no recognitions that Christianity has enabled mankind to progress to a higher standard. Muslims, Shmuslims, who cares, right?
That’s rich Dave. Please explain how Christianity is more “logical” than any other religion.
Protestant Christianity is based on the intellectual efforts to study God, in order to know what he wants of us.
Note that Lee specifies PROTESTANT Christianity.
Dave is the perfect example of why the state and religion should be kept separate.
Muslims don’t believe, look or act like him so they are lesser beings and should be exterminated.
He’s just another version of the Taliban and Nazism.
I specified Protestant Christianity because it led the way in educating the general population so they could read the Word of God, and seek an understanding of His will, rather than having high priests tell them what God wanted them to do.
Lord Acton wrote a very good book on this subject, which used to be required reading as part of a basic liberal arts education.
Preston, start by first going to a Catholic or Protestant church for about ten years, and then we will sit down and talk. You obviously have a disdain for Christianity that I cant correct on a blog.
RTH – Show me where the founders put Separation of Church and State in our Constitution. This is a liberal fallacy that has been perpetuated as the big lie told over and over. Since the founders referenced “Our Creator” in those same writings, I assume they werent referring to the Delphic Oracle. You are another one who needs to spend some time in church. It’s Sunday, get off the couch and go. You could learn a few things from Herb.
Dave, I have no disdain for Christianity. I only have disdain for those who use it as a shield to hide behind to defend their own special kind of crazy. Christianity is a “faith” based on a book. There is no logic to it. That is my point.
Oh yeah, I grew up Episcopalian. Went every Sunday for over 20 years so please don’t pull that holier than thou crap (no pun intended).
If you were never exposed to the logical side of Christianity, you need to try another church. Right now, you are like a food critic who has only eaten at one diner for 20 years, but makes pronouncements about cooking from the entire world.
Dave, the founders must have overlooked naming Jesus in the Constitution. Just a major hole in your spin of this nation as a “Christian Republic.”
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Neither Jesus, nor God, nor Jehoavah, nor Allah, nor any other deity is mentioned in the logical place, the preamble to the Constitution (above), if the founders really intended for this country to be a “Christian nation.”
“Our Creator” is pretty broad. It leaves open the option that Americans of any religious persuasion can be equally patriotic.
But the First Ammendment is really the fly in the ointment of your Christo-Facist Fantasy:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; […]
Not to mention Thomas Jefferson’s “Letter to the Danbury Baptists.” Look it up sometime and educate yourself.
Now I’m realy confused, Lee.
Aren’t Episcopalians considered Protestants?
Why would Preston have to investigate other variations of Protestantism to understand the “the logical side of Christianity?”
I’m pretty sure that Episcopalians read the Good Book for themselves. (But, then, so do Roman Catholics these days, so there goes your antiquated argument against them, eh?)
Let’s cut to the chase: all religions are referred to as “faiths” for a good reason– there is no empirical proof to set one faith over another.
Ask your pals at the John Birch Society about that conundrum.
Organized religion is nothing more than an effective tool to organize, account for and tax the masses. The sexual freak known as King James knew it and set forth the task to his secretaries of compiling a book that would aid his government to those ends.
The true strength of the Bible is shown in that the text, though often misused, still retains its power and dignity despite being sullied by the unkempt talons of a ruling child molester.
Thomas Jefferson clearly saw this and(Thank God!) wrote the basis of our country’s founding literature accordingly. Every time I encounter a religious zealot of any kind, I send a little prayer TJ’s way thanking him for his genius foresight and foreplanning.
Without such a brilliant beginning scribed by his hands, the day might have been won and more influenced by the straightforwardly religious types like Washington and Franklin. If so, this country might have evolved into something no better than a Christian version of a modern-day Muslim state.
Separation of church and state is no liberal fallacy and, God willing, may it always be our national reality.
If we want to debate something, can someone explain to me why churches are tax-exempt? Blue laws are (thankfully) eroding as common sense takes hold, so when will it also win the day where church taxation is concerned?
Lee, your analogy makes no sense. I was responding to Dave’s claim that I go to a Protestant church for about ten years. I was educated at an Episcopal school for 12 years and went to an Episcopal Church for over 20 years. That was the point. Also, there is no logic in “faith”. It is by definition unprovable, therefore illogical.
Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: ‘fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /’fAths, sometimes ‘fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at BIDE
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one’s promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
Preston, you must have skipped Sunday School. Maybe you should try a Lutheran Church, for a taste of Martin Luther, who translated the Bible into German and wrote study guides for the common man.
Right now, your idea of religion is superstition, which is not surprising. Most liberals, even the atheists, are mystics.
I just saw the bogus IQs of Clinton, Carter and Kennedy, all as over 175. What a joke! Kennedy was no brainiac, a mediocre student, even with tutors.
Clinton dodged every tough course in college, which is why he was unable to deal with foreign policy. In interviews, he admits to being unfamiliar with the basic works of literature. High IQ people have more curiosity than Bubba exhibits.
Carter was a smart engineer, but gullible as a child, and hoodwinked by everyone who got to him.
…but Dubya is a genius, right, Lee?
Talk about jokes!
“firm belief in something for which there is no proof”
What firm proof of Christian dogma did Martin Luther offer, Lee?
proof (prōōf) n.
1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
2. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
Preston, I’m not agreeing with Lee, but I question your presupposition. Is something that is not provable of necessity also illogical? A few generations ago, a lot that we know in physics today was both, but new research has changed all that.
I don’t see that Christianity is illogical in the least. It does presuppose a personal God, but that is really not all that hard to accept, unless you are predisposed to reject it (for whatever reason). People have been doing it for a long time, and as someone has pointed out, there was not really an atheist who signed the Declaration of Independence, so evidently our Founding Fathers didn’t think it was illogical.
The real question is what kind of sources do you allow, in order to get your data? And once you allow for an unseen, spiritual part of the universe (and obviously it is not only Christians who hold to that), all these postulants about “faith being unprovable” are pretty foolish.
Herb, a “virgin” had a child. That is illogical.
Do we need to keep flipping pages and noting the myriad other fallacies that even a cursory glance at the Bible would bear?
C.A. why are miracles illogical in your system? Only because your “logic” has tuned them out. Because you haven’t experienced them, well, they don’t exist, or at least, they aren’t logical. If there is a God, well, the fact that He can, at points, set aside his own physical laws is rather a logical conclusion. Rather stupid to think otherwise, really.
Well, I shall quote the Professor out of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, who as I’m sure you know is the voice of Lewis himself, who turned from atheism, kicking and screaming, to Christianity, because it became plainly logical to him:
Shorter Herb: “There’s a lot that we don’t know or can’t explain so why won’t you accept my explanation instead of, say, a native American explanation?”
Let’s take the Holy Trinity as an example, Herb. Let’s skip even proving the existence of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Instead, give me firm proof that there’s NOT a Holy Mother and a Holy Sister, too.
If you don’t want to try proving a negative then you’re welcome to offer firm proof that EACH of the Holy Trinity actually exists.
Doesn’t every religion explain the existence of the world as the result of a Creator? It’s the characterization of the Creator and the attendant story that differentiates each faith without firm proof, as far as I can tell.
Please accept my assurance that I don’t intend to be insulting of anyone’s FAITH.
Nope, RTH, no assurance needed. You’re a great person to correspond/debate with, and I mean it. Both you and Cap have a wit that makes me double over half the time.
But I’ll have to write later. Gotta’ go.
Oh, and RTH, the question was, “is faith logical?” Not, “is it provable?” Of course it isn’t provable if you don’t accept my sources. We’ll get nowhere at that point. But I still have good, logical, reasons for accepting my sources, and Cap has concluded, in faith, that miracles don’t happen. At least that seems to me what he has concluded.
Actually, both of you have faith, the question is, what your faith is in. And I am not trying to insult your faith, either, believe me. Just trying to say that mine is logical.
Oops, I didn’t turn of the blockquote, maybe this will help?
We’ll see.
Today, virgins can bear children through a variety of medical intervention procedures. She can even deliver a child which has a different mother’s egg.
George Bush is the only President with an MBA degree from Harvard Business School. I know several of his classmates, and they don’t consider him to be dumb, as uneducated liberals would like to believe.
Five years and 3000 deaths after Bush committed troops to a war of choice and he’s just now getting around to seeking expert opinions from a wide variety of sources. (Of course, it’s all a sham. He and Cheney are too damned stubborn to change course.)
He wasn’t even clear on the difference between Sunni and Shia Muslims.
He’s probably not “dumb” in the common sense (although he does a great imitation)– he’s just a rich, spoiled sociopath. I don’t care how many degrees he’s got behind his name.
Herb, you and I both know that Mary wasn’t a virgin. C’mon! I know you’ll never admit it, but deep down, there’s a part of you that knows this. I have faith that it does anyway:)
Does the belief that Mary wasn’t a Virgin detract from the power of the Bible or Christianity? Not to me. People were writing stories in an attempt to promote their cult to full religion status. They were trying to explain their world. Every culture does this.
Now that we have God’s gift of technology, though, shouldn’t we just accept these ancient fairytales for what they are?
I mean, you certainly wouldn’t accept that Coyote from Native American literature can dance around and take his eyes out or that the world is on the back of giant turtle.
Now, why would you accept accept such entertaining foolishness from a culture even more removed from our own?
Today, virgins can bear children through a variety of medical intervention procedures. She can even deliver a child which has a different mother’s egg.
Posted by: Lee | Dec 13, 2006 7:50:37 PM
Thank you, Captain Obvious. In other news, humans breathe air!
What’s your point? Are you suggesting a time traveller was the culprit concerning the “virgin birth”?
Because Jewish culture with its exact traditions and painstaking record keeping and Scriptures was, and still is to some extent, far removed from the animistic Native American culture you are describing. Over a thousand years of messing around with idolatry, prophetic words about it, and punishment through foreign invasions had taught Jews something that a lot of Gentiles still have to learn: that there is one true God, above all gods, spirits, demons, jinn, astrological spirits, and whatever else there is in the spiritual realm–the one Supreme God over all. He is a covenant God who designed us for a covenant relationship with Himself, but will never force Himself on human beings, but and so is forced to take the way of humility. He can woo; He can never force.
The Jews brought that to the world, which is one reason why Jesus said, “salvation is of the Jews.” That is not to disparage other cultures. We can learn an awful lot from each other. But the revelation of the one, true God has been handed down primarily from one source, and we have to be humble enough to accept that. And it is not easy for humans to be humble, I might add.
Sorry, but I believe in the virginal conception of Jesus, yes. For one thing, it is a crucial emphasis in the New Testament. One researcher (Gospel writer) emphasizes, through his emphasis in the word order in the original language, the concept of holy (very special, set apart) in Matt. 1:20, in connection with the conception of Jesus, so that He is fully human, but formed by God (going back to the original creation of man—Jesus is the “second Adam,” so He was brought into this world similarly to the first “Adam”). There are other interesting side tracks to follow, such as the fact that Genesis 3:15 promises a Victor over the devil through One who is “the seed of the woman” (note, not the seed of the man). Another interesting one is the fact that, though the Messiah of Israel is promised to be a son of David and in the royal line, yet God promises to reject David’s line, because of unbelief, both in Isaiah 7 (King Ahaz is a descendant of David, and in the Messianic line) and in Jeremiah 22:30, the same rejection is reiterated concerning Jeconiah, also of the Messianic line. So how is God going to fulfill His promise of the Messiah through the line of David, and still reject the line of David? Answer: through the virgin conception (hinted at in a shadow fulfillment in Isaiah 7) in the body of Mary, who apparently, if Luke 3 gives her lineage (which I believe there is evidence that it does), is also a descendant of David through an obscure son, Nathan.
The Gospel writers were not hearsay spreaders. They were researchers. Luke evidently followed Paul for years, and had ample time to research his material while Paul was imprisoned in Caesarea. It is quite probable, and logical, that he interviewed Mary at that time, and the brothers of Jesus, and many others. Of course he made use of other material that was available to him, which would have probably consisted of the “logia,” or teachings of Jesus, which comprise a large part of the Gospel of Matthew, and to which the church Father Eusebius refers to as having been written first (Jesus was, contrary to modern assumptions, not a hippie who wandered around in Galilee, tossing out truisms, but a teacher in the rabbinical tradition, who gave his teaching out in a form for memorization, and that is what his disciples did a good deal of the time during his three years of public ministry: they memorized, repeated, listened, asked questions, as well as doing ministry to people).
But the bottom line, is Cap, I believe in a God of miracles, because I have good reason to believe in one, true God who is over all others, and it is no problem for me to believe in a unique Christ, sinless, who came to die for the sins of the whole world.
Sorry, I should provide more links, but I don’t have time, and I have to go to the dentist this morning, too. Yuck.
Herb, I need to re-read and process all this information you posted. I thank you for providing it.
I don’t think we’re so far apart in our thinking. I believe in a God of Miracles, too, but I’ve observed that God has gotten a lot more subtle since the the OT. That suggests to me that many of the “blatant” miracles, for lack of a better term, are merely the creations of writers who were trying to preserve their culture in a savage age. They had to “add a shine” so that they would stand out among the many burgeoning cults of the day. Does that make sense?
As far as the miracles I can see that prove God are items/events such as: dragonflies, a bumblebee’s flight, wind, black holes, the existence of animals that are constantly being being “discovered” despite being right under our noses for millenia…
God, in my life, has shown a subtlety that either he didn’t have or didn’t exhibit in the OT or that he developed over the centuries.
It has to be noted, too, that the writers of the Bible were working off of orally passed traditions, many years after an event’s occurence, as well. That just doesn’t hold up under the scientific method.
Also, you have my prayers at the dentist. I did my time in that tenth circle of Sheoal last week!
Cap A – You are very far away from Herb’s thinking. You either believe in the Son of God, or you don’t, there is no gray area. I will give you credit for at least believing that God exists, that is a start.
Thanks Cap, I survived! I was wondering if you were egging me on, or being serious. I chose the former, and I’m glad. Thanks, I enjoy the discussions. That’s not to say, of course, that others will not contest my position (Jews are obviously not going to accept my interp of the OT, or my lineage view of Mary–it is somewhat hidden from view, but I believe it is there).
All I was trying to do for the present was defend my logical position. My wife, by the way, contends that I am not logical, but she is referring to my thought processes, not my theology. You’ve probably already noticed that.
And Dave, you are right, Jesus as Lord of all is a rather defining Person. Which I suppose is one reason we’d like to have him just as a lubby-dubby nice guy, which he evidently isn’t. But at the same time, people need time to come around to him. It took C.S. Lewis a long time.
I mean, I chose the latter (not the former as posted above). You were serious. You do have some hilarious wit, so I wasn’t sure at first if you were leading me on to slippery ice (mich aufs Glatteis fuehren, as the Germans say).
Herb, the reason that we don’t accept conclusions based on “unseen, spiritual” phenomena is not that we are absolutely precluding the possibility that such phenomena might exist, it is that insufficient evidence has so far been presented for the existence of such phenomena.
“Logic!” said the Professor half to himself. “Wh don’t they teach logic at these schools? There are only three possibilities. Either your sister is telling lies, or she is mad, or she is telling the truth. You know she doesn’t tell lies and it is obvious that she is not mad. For the moment then and unless any further evidence turns up, we must assume that she is telling the truth.”
No. It ain’t obvious that she isn’t mad. It may be contrary to our experience of her to believe that she is mad, but the probability of her having gone off the rails is WAY, WAY, WAY, higher than the probability that there is a country that you get into and out of by going into and out of a wardrobe.
And there are more possibilities than the ones listed. There could be a TV inside the wardrobe and she got confused. She could have had a dream.
If you want us to buy stuff like miracles, you have to come up with solid evidence. If you want to support the virgin birth as a real event, you have to do better than reasoning from various storylines in literature and saying, well, a virgin birth fits in with this storyline and this storyline and this storyline. That’s fine, but first, are you just shoving the virgin birth onto the storylines?
For example, Genesis 3:15 does not either promise a victor over the devil; it promises someone who will stomp on the head of a snake. It’s an explanation story for the traditional enmity between humans and snakes. The identification of the snake with Satan was shoved on later.
In addition, the “seed of the woman” phrasing isn’t unique to Gen. 3:15. Moreover, why do you interpret it as referring to a specific person, rather than as a generic term referring to all her descendants?
Second, you have to have better evidence for something like that than the fact that it fits in with a story. There are plenty of meanings that stories can have, and many times the truth of a story isn’t vitiated by the fact that the stuff in it didn’t actually happen.
We don’t exclude miracles. We just ask for evidence – good evidence – that they happened. If you accept miracles as an explanation for phenomena, they wind up explaining everything. You wind up going, “I don’t understand how that could have happened, it must have been a miracle”.
I don’t think you can satisfactorily prove that the Virgin Birth happened as a physical event. I do, think, however, that you can vitiate objections to it by saying, “it’s a metaphor.”
I would add on to the above comments concerning Lewis’ works by saying: It’s just a story. His work, and its Gospel inspirations may have been rooted in fact, but the fantastical events therein lead most readers to question their existence in a work that is, otherwise, of a very serious nature.
With this evidence in mind, I would posit that the reason for such an intermingling of the serious and the ridiculous is that the latter of those serve as symbols and motifs from which spring deeper lessons. A STRICTLY literal reading of most biblical tales strips them of their true power.
Now, when you take the “virgin birth” as an allegory, then it becomes something worthwhile and powerful. Obviously, the ancient Jews felt so as well since they very clearly borrowed the “Bastard Son Savior” archetype from the mythologies of previous cultures, tweaked it a bit and made it a part of their own.
I’ll answer this later when I have time to write something halfway coherent. But please read the question:
I am not trying to prove anything.
There are a whole set of presuppositions that would be necessary for that, and we don’t share them, or at least not all of them. All I want to demonstrate is that evangelical Christians have logical reasons for their faith. The original statement was “faith is illogical.” I take issue with that, though we still have to take up the important issue of what faith is.
I’m assuming that Brad is not going to get too upset with this diversion from the topic.
Herb, evangelical Christians DO have a VERY logical reason for their faith. One of many…with chief among them being a need for comfort.
I understand why they feel the way they do. It is HIGHLY tempting to turn off your brain and ingest the pablum. I really wish I could. I have PRAYed that I could. Life would be so much simpler.
Virgin birth. Giant boat. All Father with Perfect Son. Bushes that talk. Ladders to Heaven. A never-ending fish festival buffet. Homo-erotic, nude wrestling with earthbound angels.
It all sounds like a crazy, comforting carnival. Well, except for that last example…
But, deep down, you know they are just stories based, most likely, on fact and littered with clever symbols in order to teach lessons or explain how something came to exist in the world. Those are called myths, and though highly valuable for a culture, they are illogical and definitely not proveable.
We sit, stare, argue and kill for a storybook, when our eyes could be watching God all along. Unfortuantely, organized Christianity has a built-in safeguard against anyone who questions it for what it is.
“He’s the Dark One, tempting you with the fruits of common sense! Don’t listen! It will go far in proving your faith!”
That Catch-22 won’t bedevil me as I reckon that surrendering to a philosophy that must resort to such loopholes would result in a fate worse than Hell.
Dear, dear, me, Cap. Sorry that you are so skeptical of the documents and the witnesses. They don’t deserve that, really. Not the New Testament, certainly, and once you admit their basic reliability, the problems with the OT pale. Check out F.F. Bruces’ The NT Documents: are they Reliable? some time. Bruce was Professor of Biblical Criticism at the U. of Manchester for decades. Not a dumb dodo.
Don’t put words in my mouth. No, deep, deep down I don’t doubt naked angels and the rest. Maybe it’s because I’ve had the privilege of traveling quite a bit, and there are some very strange phenomena on this earth. Things that simply don’t fit into the closed, Western world-view of many people here. One thing is that I just don’t have the doubt in the reliability of the witnesses that you do. Oral tradition in Israel was a far cry from what you envisage, with it’s constant repetition and memorization, and then after oral transmission led to writing, meticiulous copying of manuscripts. The first writing of fragments of Mark in the 40s isn’t proved, but even the 50s and 60s is pretty early for ancient documents. And judging by Eusebius, with the “logia” written first by Matthew, I’d wager that he are talking about written documents within a few years of Jesus passion.
God doesn’t write books, of course, as Bill as already pointed out, but He does evidently inspire witnesses, who had a great desire that others know and experience the truth.
And I resent greatly the accusation that I have turned off my brain. It is true, faith is basically child-like trust, and it seems to me that you have a hard time with that. You had rather be “master of your fate, and captain of your soul,” yourself, and that is your privilege. I just happen to be convinced, from the evidence that we have, that I need a Savior, upon whom I think we have good reason to rely. Especially given the fact that we have not only the Word, but are the presence of the Spirit of God as well, with it. But that is another subject, and not one, I fear, that you will react kindly to.
I’ve heard a lot of arguments, especially in Germany, and they tend to eventually all be the same or similar. Sorry, but I haven’t heard one yet that shook my faith all that much.
Maybe one day I will hear one, but I trust in Christ, and He is bigger than my faith.
My son-in-law just came in; we’re celebrating Christmas early for family reasons, so I’m outta here now. Time for brunch! ummmm. Oh, he’s an Appalachian State alumnus, so in good spirits today.
Herb, never fear, CAP A will more than likely experience a profound conversion to Christ, if even on his deathbed. He has read about the Truth but doesn’t really want to believe it. Many dont because it would create inconvenience, are ashamed that their friends would see their conversion, or are just plain stubborn. Cap A, at least my guess, thinks he is too intellectual to accept the teachings. Give him to me for 8 weeks, anywhere, and I would unprogram that thinking.
Cap, beware of Dave the Deprogrammer.
The reference to the Virgin Birth as “metaphor” is of course your choice, but it is not legitimate use of language. Of course the Bible is full of metaphor, and many other figures of speech, and it is important to recognize them, but it is pretty plain that the essential teachings of Christianity are plain and evident, including this one, the atonement, and the Resurrection. Joseph was not perplexed about taking Mary as his wife because of some “metaphor.” He knew that virgins don’t get pregnant. Mary’s testimony was hard for him to swallow, but God talked to him in a dream, and quite frankly, God still does that kind of thing today. The Pharisees and opponents of Jesus used the insinuation that he was born of fornication on purpose–obviously the stigma was great in Jewish society, and his enemies were evidently aware of the questions with regard to his birth (John 8:41) Bultmann and his demythologizing effort tried to reinterpret for “modern” humanity, which of course has “come of age,” evolved upward, and can no longer believe in the miracles of the simple people of the past. The arrogance of modern man is extreme, but we are not the better for it. Technology we may have; character we don’t, necessarily.
One can, of course, have a god that one can keep in a box; a god who doesn’t do miracles, doesn’t intervene in human happenings. A god who can’t feed 5,000 people at once with five sandwiches, but one who can just make everybody feel ashamed, so that they bring out their lunch boxes that they had carried with them. But the most high God is not a little “lunch box” god.
We were meant to trust in a God who is bigger than that. And our lives were meant to reflect, even though weak and imperfectly, a kind of life that has no other explanation but that God is alive and at work. Unfortunately, the church often does not do that, but allies itself with the status quo. Mother Theresa is supposed to have said, “You will never know that Jesus Christ is all you need, until Jesus Christ is all you have.” –though I can’t substantiate the quote in a hurry. True, nonetheless, whether or not it comes from Mother Theresa. We Western Christians (I myself included, which is why I will lay claim to Mary’s accusation of being a pompous hypocrite–and hope that Jesus did really die for sinners) are, however, mostly in such a rush to do exactly what Jesus said not to do (horde up treasures on earth) that we can’t possibly experience what we should with God. Thankfully, I have had the privilege to meet many who live above that.
Anyone can profit by reading Bonhoeffer’s letter to his sister about how he learned, in prison, to read and trust Scripture, and how he met God through it. Bonhoeffer, more than many theologians, evidences the child-like trust in God that is the character of true faith. I have it in my files, and if I find the time, and anyone is interested, I’ll scan it in and post it.
“he reference to the Virgin Birth as “metaphor” is of course your choice, but it is not legitimate use of language.”
Yeah it is.
And that’s how simple it is to refute many of your assertions, and the reason they can be refuted like that is because you argue backwards. You know what you want to believe, and you go backward from there, seeking support for your already formed beliefs. What you need to do is to take the evidence and work your way forward.
“Joseph was not perplexed about taking Mary as his wife because of some “metaphor.” He knew that virgins don’t get pregnant. Mary’s testimony was hard for him to swallow, but God talked to him in a dream, and quite frankly, God still does that kind of thing today.”
See, we do not in fact have solid evidence of these details. You are, once again, going backward from what you want to believe. You want to believe that the Virgin Birth was a physical event that actually happens, the idea that Joseph bought into it supports your belief, so you use Joseph’s buying into the Virgin Birth as support for the idea that it happened, even though all we know about Joseph’s reaction is a passage in the SAME STORY in which the Virgin Birth appears. Two events, in the same story, written about by the same guy.
And your assertion, Mary? What evidence is there that the Virgin Birth is simply “metaphor,” other than the fact that you say that it is? Just repeating the sentence, “Yeah it is” doesn’t prove anything.
But, as I wrote, I’m not trying to prove anything; just suggest that faith does not have to be illogical.
Herb, I’m not arguing that God doesn’t exist. I “feel” that S/He does. I don’t care if anyone believes or not, nor will I waste my time trying to convince them.
My real issue is with otherwise intelligent people influencing others to believe that fairytales are fact.
I love mythology of all sorts. I’ve read entirely too much of it to close my eyes to the fact that its value isn’t literal, but in the symbolic and inspirational aspects of its creation and presentation.
Herb, do you honestly think that humans all of a sudden “got it right” when the Jews created their own version of religion composed of many pieces of those which came before? All you need to do is look at the inanity that is the Mormon “religion” to see how facts become twisted into fantasy for the benefit of a small group.
Or were the Jews immune to such behavior?
Of course they were because you BELIEVE they were…
Well, let me just go on believing that the world is sitting on the back of a giant turtle. Doesn’t that assertion irk you?
That’s how frustrating it is when I hear people, like yourself, suggest that a naked human man LITERALLY wrestled and DEFEATED an angel. Ridiculous!
It’s symbolism people! Jacob is wrestling with his belief! It’s representative of internal conflict. It doesn’t take much intellect to see that, does it?
You can’t put God in a box, as you say. You most certainly can’t put S/He in a book, either, as history is proof of that.
Herb, you’re the one making the extraordinary claim, so you’re the one with the obligation to present evidence. I said “yeah it is” in response to your claim that calling the Virgin Birth a metaphor isn’t a legitimate use of language, because that’s all your claim deserved. You didn’t present any grounds or evidence supporting your assertion, so all it deserved was a direct contradiction.
I’m not denying that the Virgin Birth occurred as a real event. What I’m saying is that I haven’t seen any reliable evidence for it, and YOU certainly didn’t present any. Your reference to Joseph’s purported acceptance of it as a supporting point was absolutely pathetic, for the reason I stated above. You say you’re trying to suggest that faith doesn’t have to be illogical, well, so far you have failed. And casting it back on me to prove my assertion doesn’t help you any. YOU are the one making the claim.
As for the Virgin Birth being a metaphor, that possibility is easy to demonstrate. Jesus had a special, unique relationship with God, was created by God specially, the Virgin Birth story is a symbol of that special relationship.
That’s a legitimate approach. It also fits in with what we know, such literary constructions are used all the time. Real, physical virgin births are different, if you want to show that one happened, you will need to come up with better evidence than you have so far.
You haven’t seen any credible evidence of “global warming caused by man”, either, but a huge cult believes in that.
Depends on what you mean Mary. When someone means to use a metaphor, there are good reasons within the text for interpreting it that way. When one means to present historical fact, as the writer of Luke evidently did, he presents his material that way. Saying that he intended it only to be a “metaphor” of Jesus’ unique relationship with the Father, and not a historical happening, is to negate his own words about his purpose (Luke 1:1-4). I’m not denying that Scripture often has a depth of meaning because of it’s total context (and that includes the Serpent motif, by the way), but it’s meaning does not deny historicity, when historicity is actually intended.
You haven’t seen any credible evidence of “global warming caused by man”, either, but a huge cult believes in that.
If, by “cult,” you mean the vast majority of environmental scientists.
Since representatives of a similar scientific “cults” have successfully put men on the moon and eradicated many harmful diseases, most rational people give them credence.
Actually, the top meteorologists reject the notion of “global warming” as bogus political junk.
This year, another 400 top scientists met in Switzerland and debunked all the junk theories floated by environmental alarmists.
—- Now more —————-
Scientists respond to Gore’s warnings of climate catastrophe
“The Inconvenient Truth” is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Canada Free Press
Monday, June 12, 2006
“Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it,” Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film “An Inconvenient Truth”, showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.”
See also:
The Gods must be laughing
A sample of experts’ comments about the science of “An Inconvenient Truth”:
But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of “climate change skeptics” who disagree with the “vast majority of scientists” Gore cites?
No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. “Climate experts” is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore’s “majority of scientists” think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. “While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change,” explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. “They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies.”
This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn’t make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.
So we have a smaller fraction.
But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. “These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios,” asserts Ball. “Since modelers concede computer outputs are not “predictions” but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts.”
We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.
Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, “There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years.” Patterson asked the committee, “On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming?”
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and “hundreds of other studies” reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth’s temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore’s dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. “The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier,” says Winterhalter. “In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form.”
Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, “Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems.”
From wikipedia:
Organisations that support the global warming theory (or at least that have issued supportive declarations) include the following. These represent the mainstream position, a consensus that is the current scientific opinion on climate change.
* The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
* The national academies of science of the G8 countries and Brazil, the People’s Republic of China and India [29].
* The US National Academy of Sciences, both in its 2002 report to President George W. Bush, and in its latest publications, has strongly endorsed evidence of an average global temperature increase in the 20th century and stated that human activity is heavily implicated in causing this increase.
* The American Meteorological Society (AMS statement).
* The American Geophysical Union (AGU statement). John Christy, who is usually placed in the skeptics camp, has signed the AGU statement on climate change.
* The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). [30]
* The Union of Concerned Scientists
“Depends on what you mean Mary. When someone means to use a metaphor, there are good reasons within the text for interpreting it that way.”
No there aren’t.
Certainly what you say can be true, but if you are positing it as an invariable rule, that’s just ridiculous.
“When one means to present historical fact, as the writer of Luke evidently did, he presents his material that way.”
Or not. It depends on his purpose and writing style.
“Saying that he intended it only to be a “metaphor” of Jesus’ unique relationship with the Father, and not a historical happening, is to negate his own words about his purpose (Luke 1:1-4).”
No it isn’t.
“I’m not denying that Scripture often has a depth of meaning because of it’s total context (and that includes the Serpent motif, by the way), but it’s meaning does not deny historicity, when historicity is actually intended.”
Nor does the presence of a narrative of events impute historical authenticity, when historical authenticity was not intended, or was subordinated to other purposes that the writer felt were more important.
What you’re basically saying is that your interpretation of the Bible is the only legitimate interpretation. And to that, I can only respond:
“No it isn’t”.
Hurl, you name a few groups of nameless scientists who are not experts in climate, and I point you to hundreds of named experts in climatology.
You can’t respond to their arguments, but don’t feel bad – neither can the non-experts you try to cite.
Wikipedia is a grassroots online encyclopedia, not peer reviewed, and many articles are just fabrications by socialists, mixed in with serious articles by real experts.
Lee, you don’t reference “hundreds of named experts in climatology.” You cut and paste an article from a Canadian newspaper which cites ONE climatologist.
You claim a supposed conference “in Switzerland” supports your counter-argument but conveniently fail to name the conference or give any references.
I’ve never claimed to be a climatologist. I suppose that we can add you as an expert in this field, too. How many fields does that make? Your expertise seems to comes from cutting and pasting an article from a rightwing Canadian rag.
I cite numerous national scientific organizations recognized as authorities on accepted science. You stand logic on its head and claim that the professional opinions of a SINGLE marine geophysist, a ONE marine researcher and a LONE professor of “Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology” outweigh the accepted conclusions of numerous national and international scientific organizations.
Here are some scientists who think that global warming is the result of human activities.
Ralph J. Cicerone, Ph.D.
President, National Academy of Sciences
Nearly all climate scientists today believe that much of Earth’s current warming has been caused by increases in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mostly from the burning of fossil fuels.
National Academies’ Reports Cited in the Testimony
Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: Expanding the Concept and Addressing Uncertainties (2005)
Climate Data Records from Environmental Satellites (2004)
Implementing Climate and Global Change Research (2004)
A Vision for the International Polar Year 2007-2008 (2004)
The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers and R&D Needs (2004)
Understanding Climate Change Feedbacks (2003)
Planning Climate and Global Change Research (2003)
Novel Approaches to Carbon Management: Separation, Capture, Sequestration, and Conversion to Useful Products (2003)
Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises (2002)
Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards (2002)
Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (2001)
Improving the Effectiveness of U.S. Climate Modeling (2001)
A Climate Services Vision: First Steps Towards the Future (2001)
Energy Research at DOE, Was It Worth It? (2001)
Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change (2000)
Adequacy of Climate Observing Systems (1999)
Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming (1992)
Professor Mario Molina
[awarded the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his role in elucidating the threat to the Earth’s ozone layer of chlorofluorocarbon gases (or CFCs).]
MIT
Simply stated, the world is warming.
• It is due to our emissions.
• More warming is inevitable — but the amount of future warming is in our hands.
• Because CO2 accumulates and remains in the atmosphere, each generation inherits the emissions of all those who have gone before. Many future generations of human beings will wrestle with this issue.
• Modest amounts of warming will have both positive and negative impacts. But above a certain threshold, the impacts turn strongly negative for most nations, people, and biological systems.
While there is a growing scientific consensus around the science of climate change, there is of course much that we do not fully understand about the timing, geographic distribution, and severity of the changes in climate – and the economic, environmental, and social impacts of these changes […]
James W. Hurrell, Ph. D.*
Director, Climate and Global Dynamics Division
National Center for Atmospheric Research
My personal research has centered on empirical and modeling studies and diagnostic analyses to better understand climate, climate variability and climate change. I have authored or co-authored more than 60 peer-reviewed scientific journal articles and book chapters, as well as dozens of other planning documents and workshop papers. I have given more than 65 invited talks worldwide, as well as many contributed presentations at national and international conferences on climate. I have also convened over one dozen national and international workshops, and I have served on several national and international science-planning efforts.
Sir John Houghton
professor in atmospheric physics at the University of Oxford, former Chief Executive at the Met Office and founder of the Hadley Centre. the chairman of the John Ray Initiative, an organisation “connecting Environment, Science and Christianity”.[1], where he has compared the stewardship of the Earth, to the stewardship of the Garden of Eden by Adam and Eve.
The scientific literature on climate change has increased enormously over the last decade. The basic science of anthropogenic climate change has been confirmed. The main uncertainties lie in our knowledge of feedbacks in the climate system especially those associated with the effects of clouds. Recent research has tended to indicate increased likelihood of the more damaging impacts.
ENGINEERED ‘‘CONSENSUS”
Continuing with our media analysis: On July 24, 2006 The Los Angeles Times featured an op-ed by Naomi Oreskes, a social scientist at the University of California San Diego and the author of a 2004 Science Magazine study. Oreskes insisted that a review of 928 scientific papers showed there was 100% consensus that global warming was not caused by natural climate variations. This study was also featured in former Vice President Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth,” http://epw.senate.gov/fact.
cfm?party=rep&id=259323
However, the analysis in Science Magazine excluded nearly 11,000 studies or more than 90 percent of the papers dealing with global warming, according to a critique by British social scientist Benny Peiser. Peiser also pointed out that less than two percent of the climate studies in the survey actually endorsed the so-called “consensus view” that human activity is driving global warming and some of the studies actually opposed that view.
But despite this manufactured “consensus,” the media continued to ignore any attempt to question the orthodoxy of climate alarmism.
RTH, check out this link as well. It won’t convince Lee, but then what would?
Wikipedia
Dr. Peiser examined the essay by Naomi Oreskes published in the science and society section of Science which reported the lack of dissenting opinions in a sample of 928 peer-reviewed scientific journal articles on global warming. The articles in Oreskes’s survey were drawn from the ISI database using the search terms “global climate change,” though she originally claimed to have used the broader terms “climate change.”
He purported to do a similar survey with different results. His letters [4] were rejected by the editors of Science. A crucial subset of his survey’s results was posted and analyzed [5] by blogger Tim Lambert, and Dr. Peiser later conceded [6] that his survey contained some errors, though he maintains that the substance of his criticism of Oreskes’s essay remains valid.
Dr. Peiser has recently conceded ina letter to the australian Media Watch that he no longer maintains this particular criticism, and that he no longer doubts that “an overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous.”. [7]
Why Global Warming Is Bunk
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Prof Bob Carter, a geologist doing paleoclimate research at James Cook
University, Queensland, Australia, sums up climate change:
“The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time,
partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming.”
Professor Carter points out the embarassing fact for the global warming alarmist cult that the Earth stopped warming in 1998, contrary to their famous
hockey-stick prediction that a global heat wave would melt the ice caps and
wash us all away. The temperature graph has gone flat for the last eight years, contrary to the Chicken Little predictions of doom foisted on a gullible public by the liberal media.
In fact, the global temperature trend was erratic in the 20th century. The
Earth’s temperature rose from 1918 to 1940, then inexplicably fell from 1940 to 1965, kicking off the global cooling scare at the same time humans were doing all that industrialization the current crop of loonies claim heat the planet.
The Earth’s temperature heated back up from 1970 to 1998, which led the global cooling fruitcases to do an about face and claim global warming was now the threat. Now the temperature is plateaued, perhaps signalling another cooling spell.
Lee, you’re a hoot.
Your first criticism is that a bunch of scientists are making assessments of global climate change outside their field of knowledge.
After I provide the testimony of four climatologists to the U.S. Senate, you reverse course and cite (again) the opinion of a geologist!
Do you just pickup the opinion of any scientist with a university position that happens to agree with your pre-determined position?
Carter is just a shill (knowingly or unknowingly, compensated or uncompensated) of industry that has a vested interest in denying global warming.
wikipedia:
Carter is a member of the Australian astroturf Lavoisier Group, comprised of global warming skeptics. It was founded and funded by the Western Mining Corporation (WMC). Carter also wrote non-peer-reviewed articles on global warming for Tech Central Station, which received 63% of its income in 2003 from ExxonMobil.
I’m not going to debate you full o’ crap statements. I don’t have to. I’ve cited four climatologists who hold prestigious positions in research institutions. Al Gore cites 968 peer reviewed scientific papers. All of these scientists disagree with your ONE GEOLOGIST and you.
Of course, since you’ve become a climatological expert now (in addition to your expertise in history and the U.S. Constitution, engineering and any other field that strikes your half-assed fancy) you think that your conclusions outweigh the preponderance of professional research scientists who’ve had their conclusions vetted by other recognized scientific experts in the field.
What a joke you are.
Fewer than 1% of experts accept theory of global warming
In 2004, Science magazine published a survey of all the peer-reviewed research on climate change published between 1993 and 2003.
The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, Vol 306, Issue 5702, 1686 , 3 December 2004
Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (or 1%) explicitly endorse the ‘consensus view’.
322 abstracts (or 29%) implicitly accept the ‘consensus view’ but mainly focus
on impact assessments of envisaged global climate change.
Less than 10% of the abstracts (89) focus on “mitigation”.
67 abstracts mainly focus on methodological questions.
87 abstracts deal exclusively with paleo-climatological research unrelated to
recent climate change.
34 abstracts reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the “the observed warming over the last 50 years”.
44 abstracts focus on natural factors of global climate change.
470 (or 42%) abstracts include the keywords “global climate change” but do not
include any direct or indirect link or reference to human activities, CO2 or
greenhouse gas emissions, let alone anthropogenic forcing of recent climate
change.
Dr. Oreskes found over 4,000 articles when only using two words to search all the academic databases, most of which were not on the subject. When she narrowed her search by using 3 words, she obtained a better dataset for in-depth review.
I know I lost RTH and bud, but the rest of you will understand.
Hurl, my graduate work in engineering, law and economics actually does make me an expert to some extent, especially relative to the untutored like yourself.
Lee, when your curriculum vitae, professional experience and recognized stature in climalogical study matches any one of the four experts that I cited above, then I’ll accept your conclusions.
Some of the stupidest people that I’ve ever met were in grad school. Your claim to “graduate work” in fields of study as varied as economics, law and engineering doesn’t impress me. In fact, it suggests a sort of unfocused idiot savant syndrome– with emphasis on “idiot.”
The curriculum vitae, professional experience and recognized stature in climalogical study of the hundreds of experts I cited more than matches the 4 “experts” you dredged up.
Why don’t you discuss the facts, instead of hiding behind opinions you don’t understand?
Group: ExxonMobil paid to mislead public
WASHINGTON – ExxonMobil Corp. gave $16 million to 43 ideological groups between 1998 and 2005 in a coordinated effort to mislead the public by discrediting the science behind global warming, the Union of Concerned Scientists asserted Wednesday.
The report by the science-based nonprofit advocacy group mirrors similar claims by Britain’s leading scientific academy. Last September, The Royal Society wrote the oil company asking it to halt support for groups that “misrepresented the science of climate change.”
ExxonMobil did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the scientific advocacy group’s report.
Many scientists say accumulating carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from tailpipes and smokestacks are warming the atmosphere like a greenhouse, melting Arctic sea ice, alpine glaciers and disturbing the lives of animals and plants.
ExxonMobil lists on its Web site nearly $133 million in 2005 contributions globally, including $6.8 million for “public information and policy research” distributed to more than 140 think-tanks, universities, foundations, associations and other groups. Some of those have publicly disputed the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.
But in September, the company said in response to the Royal Society that it funded groups which research “significant policy issues and promote informed discussion on issues of direct relevance to the company.” It said the groups do not speak for the company.
Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists’ strategy and policy director, said in a teleconference that ExxonMobil based its tactics on those of tobacco companies, spreading uncertainty by misrepresenting peer-reviewed scientific studies or cherry-picking facts.
Dr. James McCarthy, a professor at Harvard University, said the company has sought to “create the illusion of a vigorous debate” about global warming.
Lee, where have you referenced “hundreds of experts?” I count a handful of scientists cited by name in one article from a reactionary rightwing Candadian newspaper.
You cited only one person with any climalogical credentials.
With all your vaunted academic training one would assume that you understand what “citation” means– even in the loosest usage.
BTW, the scientists that I cited were asked to address a Congressional Committee for their expertise in the subject. Were yours?
In one post your referred to some unnamed conference in Switzerland. Are these the anonymous experts that supposedly support your viewpoint?
Or are you just deluded?