Dedicated to giving reasons for what we believe, and why, in the interface between science and the Christian faith. Giving thoughts, criticisms, and informed satirical commentary on Contemporary Culture, Religion, Politics, and Traditional Values.
They miss the difference between objective morals and subjective ones. Abortion is objectively morally wrong, since it is wrong to murder innocent human beings.
However, it is subjective to claim we must support (fill in the blank) liberal social policy. Biblical Justice is objective; wealth redistribution (for example) to achieve "justice" is not. No amount of support for subjective morality outways objective moral truths on protecting innocent human life and sexuality.
“Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. I am not unmindful of the fact that violence often brings about momentary results. Nations have frequently won their independence in battle. But in spite of temporary victories, violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones. Violence is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding: it seeks to annihilate rather than convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends up defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers." Martin Luther King Jr., 11 Dec 1964
So true. He was a real leader. Where are those today? So what is the agenda of the violent mob then, since it is obviously not real justice and equality? Even the "peaceful" protestors chant and write despicable things about other human beings. Dr. King was not in favor of tearing down the family and societal structure of America. He knew that this kind of revolution is evil and immoral.
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary" Federalist No. 51
A Balanced Take on the Controversial Topic of Climate Change
I was excited to get an advanced copy of the new RTB Press book, Weathering Climate Change - A Fresh Approach by Hugh Ross. But I also began to read this book with a bit of trepidation. I was afraid, given the polarizing views on both sides of this issue, that this book will cause controversy and detract from RTB's primary mission of Science-Apologetics for the sake of evangelism. As it turns out, this book is both pointed and pragmatic. It will push your preconceptions whatever your perspective on the climate change challenges we face.
Hugh Ross is well qualified to provide a balanced perspective on this topic. This is fundamentally not just an issue for climatologists, but requires an interdisciplinary approach by someone who is both technical enough to understand the science and also wide-read enough to have a broad perspective on the interplay between the various disciplines and issues that are pertinent. The author gives such a balanced understanding of the problems and possible solutions on this contentious and complicated issue.
The book does a good job of separating the politics, emotions, and policy issues from the actual science. If anything, the book is heavy on the science details, though seemingly weighted more toward the standard scientific consensus of the data, with less discussion of possible objections by the minority of scientists who have some disagreements on various points. On balance, though, I felt like it gives a fair representation of the current best understanding of warming measurements and modeling. The conclusion is that, "yes", human activity has affected the climate since the industrial revolution, and the climate may be at (or close to) a tipping point where our current extended period of climate stability is at an end. He does make the point, however, that we still have to face "the inevitable onset of another glacial episode. We may be able to put it off for a few more centuries, perhaps even for a little more than a millennium, but we cannot extend our present interglacial indefinitely."
Where I think that Hugh Ross makes a distinctive contribution to this discussion, is in his fair and objective look at our responses to the climate crisis. He presents three categories of possible solutions: mitigate, adapt, and/or "defeat" (or live with it). He feels that the apocalyptic nature of some claims: global emergency, the need to awaken the public, or calls for immediate, drastic action, feed fear and don't promote rational discussion of solutions. Scientists' legitimate concerns communicated through journalists and politicians have polarized opinions, from panic and knee-jerk activism to disbelief and lack of trust in the claims.
Dr. Ross points out that self-interest of people and nations makes enforcement an intractable problem, because human nature is such that we want to look out for our own self-interests first and let others sacrifice. This is not surprising due to the dual reality of humanity: while we are created in God's image and can achieve great good, we are also broken by our selfish sinful nature, and we rebel against the good that God calls us to do.
He asks us to consider if there are Win-Win solutions. It seems to me that some win-wins mentioned would not be widely embraced, such as forced changes to diet, animal husbandry, or traditional farming methods. It seems unwise to trust that we can quickly replace our current energy needs by future technology, even if we dramatically increase research funding. Any solutions found through new research likely would not be ready until decades into the future. Hugh Ross presents some possible climate solutions with the objective of sparking creative thinking and collaboration, and to also "demonstrate that we need not choose between what is best for the environment and what is best for our economic well-being." Personally, I am skeptical that any of these proposed solutions can be implemented quickly enough, on a large enough scale, to make a significant dent in our climate change situation.
As in past books, Dr. Ross clearly makes the case that the Earth's environmental conditions have been fine-tuned for life. Many unique circumstances and features of the Earth, Moon, stellar environment, and more, lead to the suggestion that the whole system has been carefully designed and balanced for advanced human civilization during the current narrow window of time. He says, "The anthropic principle is the observation that the universe, Earth, and Earth’s life appear exquisitely and intentionally designed for humanity."
The middle section of the book is more technical, which might not be as accessible to the general public. However, the conclusions and summary questions bring focus at the end of each chapter. In general, the book is well-sourced and full of recent scientific data on the climate. Here Dr. Ross provides an in-depth explanation of the causes behind ice age cycles and other historical global climate changes. Again he shows that the current interglacial stability has provided the ideal environment for our modern civilization, designed and finely tuned by the Creator for that purpose. He suggests that the current period of extreme climate stability has given us the opportunity to reach billions of people with the Good News. That brings promise of true purpose and meaning to their lives, and hope for an even better future home awaiting in the new creation.
The book ends with a plea for collaboration and cooperation among all the diverse groups of humanity in finding win-win climatic solutions. In the meantime, it is the duty of those who choose to follow Christ to take an active role in caring for both people and the planet, so that we can maximize the time we have available to reach more people for Christ.
I recently finished reading the new book, Escaping the Beginning?, by Jeff Zweerink, and found it to be a very good overview of the state of modern cosmology. More importantly, it delves into the philosophical underpinnings and possible motivations behind theoretical models concerning the origin of our universe. Zweerink is a high-energy research physicist and also a research scholar and speaker for the science-faith thinktank, Reasons to Believe, so he is highly qualified to tackle the philosophical, scientific, and religious questions raised about whether or not the universe had an actual beginning, and the implications thereof. He is also the author of another interesting book, Who's Afraid of the Multiverse?
As someone with a physics background, I appreciated the discussion of the various cosmological models developed over the last couple of centuries. While some of the information may stretch the non-technical reader, the author is able to clearly articulate and summarize the findings, and then address the implications for a beginning. Some of the topics covered include: the various kinds of Multiverse theories, definitions of time, the size and curvature of the universe, quantum gravity theories, string theory, and a universe from "nothing". Throughout the book, the various philosophical motivations and religious implications are considered. For instance, he shows that Multiverse theories were not developed simply to avoid a beginning, but rather have a sound theoretical basis, even it they are not necessarily verifiable. However, he does point out that there are philosophical and religious reasons that these proposals have been embraced or rejected by some.
While I understand that it is a mentally hard topic, I found the section on how we define time to be interesting, even if it just scratched the surface of the subject matter. The concept of time is fundamental to understanding causality and basic laws of physics, such as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (entropy). While we can write physics equations using a time parameter (say t), letting us vary the values corresponding to the past and future, does that describe what is really happening as our perception of time moves forward? It bends the mind to think that General Relativity actually ties time and space together as separate dimensions of a unified whole. Given various theories of time, one wonders "Does the past, present, and future actually exist or is the past gone and future events not here yet?" or "Why does time only move forward, or is this just an illusion?" The book considers questions like this and even the implications of the various theories on the meaning of a beginning.
Ultimately Zweerink concludes that it appears that the best theoretical models and experimental observations lean toward a universe (or Multiverse) with an actual beginning, compatible with the biblical claim that the universe had a beginning and a Beginner. While there are several theoretical models that could possibly be interpreted as having no beginning, any experimental validation of these is either far beyond our current scientific capabilities, or may even be untestable in principle. He concludes, "That remains a reasonable and defensible position today, and my bet is that quantum gravity approaches will ultimately reveal evidence for a universe with a genuine beginning." So, at least for the foreseeable future, there is no sure escape from the Beginning!
