Please note: To those who feel that other's emphasis gets in the way of their own reading sometimes, i apologize for mine here and wherever. It is a bit selfish i know. On the other hand, i also hope it might help some others, too. .. fuagf .. :)
Spinoza's god, which might seem an odd thing to do. Baruch Spinoza, one of the greatest philosophers of his day, was expelled from the Amsterdam synagogue in 1656 because of his unorthodox religious views. Ever since, he has been regarded as the great atheist of the Western tradition. Yet he mentions God very often throughout his writings. So this week, we try to reconcile the paradox in Spinoza between his perceived atheism and his constant references to the divine.
Alan Saunders: Today on The Philosopher's Zone, we meet Spinoza's god.
Now that might seem an odd thing to do. Baruch Spinoza, one of the greatest philosophers of his day, was expelled from the Amsterdam Synagogue in 1656, probably because of his unorthodox religious views.
Ever since, Spinoza has been regarded as the great atheist of the Western tradition. Between the 17th and the 19th centuries, not only were his works periodically suppressed, but even being named 'a Spinozist' could have had grave consequences.
Hello, I'm Alan Saunders. And here's the odd thing. Spinoza refers to God throughout his writings. His central work, the Ethics, opens with a definition of God, and closes with a discussion of divine love.
Another of his book, The Treatise of Political Theology deals extensively with the law of Moses and the role that religion plays in the formation and perpetuation of states.
So how are we to reconcile the paradox in Spinoza between his perceived atheism and his constant references to the divine?
Well, to help us with our reconciliation, we're joined now by Beth Lord, who teaches philosophy at the University of Dundee, and is the Director of the Spinoza Research Network. ....................... INSERT: Conference: Man and Nature from Descartes to Wollstonecraft http://spinozaresearchnetwork.wordpress.com/ .......................
Beth, welcome to The Philosopher's Zone.
Beth Lord: Thank you very much, it's a pleasure to be here.
Alan Saunders: Let's begin, not with Spinoza but with somebody we can all agree genuinely is an atheist, Richard Dawkins. Now he entertains in his central book on atheism, he entertains the idea of Einstein's God. And Einstein's God, the God who as Einstein said does not play dice with the universe, Einstein's God is essentially Spinoza's God. So what is Dawkins getting at?
Beth Lord: This is a really interesting point. Dawkins actually opens his book The God Delusion, with a discussion of what he calls Einsteinian Religion, and essentially what he's talking about is Spinoza's God. Now Spinoza's God is essentially equivalent to nature, and by nature we don't just mean the whole of the experienced and perceived world around us, but actually all of being, which for Spinoza is infinitely rich and expresses itself in infinite ways.
So when Dawkins refers to Einstein's God or Einsteinian religion, of course Einstein was a great reader of Spinoza, he was a great fan of Spinoza, and he claimed on more than one occasion that the God he believed in was Spinoza's God. And when Dawkins quotes this material, he makes clear that the God that he is denying in his book and the delusion that he associates with that God, is not concerning Einstein's God or Einsteinian religion but is concerning the God of theology, supernatural Gods essentially.
Alan Saunders: So Dawkins' view basically is that you can have Einstein's Gods, Spinoza's God, if you want to, but why bother?
Beth Lord: Essentially that's right. He seems to be perfectly happy to accept that some scientists and other atheists might well want to hold to a notion of the Einsteinian God, or the Spinozistic God, but he has problems with calling that being 'God'. Dawkins thinks that if we call Nature God, we're kind of confusing our terminology, and why would we do that if we're really atheists? Why would we call Nature God? Why not call Nature, Nature, and take God out of the equation altogether?
Alan Saunders: Well indeed, why not call Nature, Nature? Why does Spinoza talk so much about God?
Beth Lord: Well Spinoza believes that the true understanding of God really does equate to the whole of being. So let me put a little bit more detail on that. Spinoza thinks that any kind of basic theological definition of God, whether that be from a Jewish, Christian, Muslim perspective, or even from other religious perspectives, any basic definition of God is going to include the definition that God is a substance of infinite attributes.
Now what does that mean? Well for Spinoza, 'substance' basically means an independently existing being, that is something that doesn't depend on anything else for its existence, and 'infinite attributes' really means that this being exists in infinite different kinds of ways. So Spinoza thinks that if you take your basic theological definition of God and you strip away all the stuff that's said about this God in the Bible, or through conventional religion, then what you'll be left with is that definition, a being of infinite attributes.
Spinoza thinks that there's good reason to carry on calling this being 'God', because that for him, is basically what God is. So we should carry on calling it God, but his point is that the theologians and people who believe in religion, need to understand, they need to come to true understanding of the fact that the God that they believe in truly turns out to be 'being,' the substance of infinite attributes.
Alan Saunders: If that's who God is, or if that's what God is, doesn't that make Spinoza a pantheist?
Beth Lord: Yes. Spinoza is certainly a pantheist. He's usually called an atheist, and it's also true to say that he's an atheist in the sense that he denies the God of theism. So the God of theism would be God as he is described in the Bible let's say, and Spinoza certainly thinks that that God is a fiction, a fictional construct that human beings use, for very good reason.
So Spinoza can be said to be an atheist in that sense, but as you've pointed out already, it's pretty strange to call someone an atheist whose work is so infused with the notion of God. So the term Pantheist is often used to describe Spinoza, and a Pantheist is really someone who believes that God is everywhere, God is in everything. But even the word 'Pantheist' can be a bit problematic when talking about Spinoza, because you know, really Spinoza believes that God IS being, not that God is in being, or that God is dwelling in things, or anything like that, but that God just is equivalent to all of existence.
Alan Saunders: Spinoza thinks that there are three ways of apprehending the world. There's intuition, there's reason, philosophy and science and so on, and there's the imagination. Now we can presumably use all of them to understand God, but imagination is very important here, isn't it?
Beth Lord: That's right. The three kinds of knowledge are crucial to Spinoza's system. Imagination is the way we know through experience. So anything that has to do with the way we experience and perceive the world with our memories, with our anticipations, with our dreams, all of these kinds of things are what Spinoza calls imagination. And imagination, while it's less adequate than rational knowledge, as Spinoza puts it, it's a kind of confused and partial and mixed-up version of true knowledge, nevertheless, it's not entirely false or illusory, we shouldn't take the word 'imagination' necessarily to mean made up, or anything like that. Imagination is essentially empirical knowledge, and empirical knowledge is hugely important in building up our true rational knowledge, which is sort of the next stage up.
Now imagination is important with respect to this question of God and religion, because through the imagination we build up what Spinoza calls 'fictions', and fictions, they have quite an interesting status in Spinoza's epistemology. Fictions are neither true nor false, they're kind of organised systems of images based on our experiences, based on the experiences that human beings share. These fictions are hugely useful in structuring our experience and helping us to decide how to behave and how to live our lives. And religion, and the Biblical notion of God, fit in to this idea of fiction.
Alan Saunders: So religion is a fiction. Does that mean that again, contrary to Dawkins, it's not among those things that can be said to be either true or false?
Beth Lord: That's right. Spinoza thinks that because religion is fictional, it means that it's not the kind of thing that can be demonstrated to be true or false. It's a useful organising structure that helps us to organise our experience. And Spinoza thinks that religion is specifically useful in helping people to behave better and to be obedient to the law. So this is quite an interesting factor of Spinoza's thought. He's all in favour of religion, not because he thinks that religion gives us a true understanding of God, but because religion interprets God to people in a way that they can easily understand. And Spinoza thinks that that's far preferable than that people should hold false notions or that they should just be left to their own devices, he thinks religion is actually quite a useful structure, in making people kind of get along well with one another, and, as he puts it, loving their neighbour and living peacefully and harmoniously. And that's really what fictions are for.
Alan Saunders: Let's just tease out the notion of fictions a bit more. And let's take an example: Hamlet. OK Hamlet is a fiction, however there are things I can say about Hamlet which are not true. If I say that Hamlet is a black man who lives in Venice I've confused him with Othello. And it is not true that Hamlet is a black man who lives in Venice. So I can make true or false statements about a fiction.
Beth Lord: You can, but the truth and falsity of those statements are only relative to the fictional world of Hamlet. In a sense there is no true or false statement that can be made about Hamlet because Hamlet isn't a true idea. So Spinoza really holds to a very specific understanding of truth. And true ideas for Spinoza are ideas that exist in God, that is, in being. So Hamlet for Spinoza really isn't a true idea but nor is it false idea. Again, it's a fiction, it's an idea that's neither true nor false, that might be useful for us.
So the story of Hamlet and the play of Hamlet might be useful for our society, or just useful for entertainment or for telling a story. But the whole question of true and false statements about it, while we might say one could make true and false statements about the events in the play, they're not ultimately true or false, for Spinoza they're just imaginary.
Alan Saunders: So the function of religion then is that it promotes peace and harmony. It has a social utility?
Beth Lord: Yes, that's right.
Alan Saunders: And it needs to be kept away, theology and faith need to be set apart from reason and philosophy.
Beth Lord: Exactly. What Spinoza says is that reason and philosophy have a different aim from religion. The purpose of reason, philosophy and science, are to discover the truth. So through our rational thought, we attain more and more true knowledge, or adequate knowledge, and what that means really is that we tap in to true ideas as they exist in God. It's quite a strange notion, but Spinoza explains it quite clearly.
How we do this is basically through things like scientific experiments, where we pick up on what's called the common notions, and these are kind of ideas that are common to ourselves and to the things that we interact with. So as build up more and more of these common notions, we attain more and more true knowledge, and we do that through science, through philosophy, through various other kinds of human endeavours as well. So the aim of science, philosophy and reason is to get at the truth.
Now the aim of religion is rather different. Spinoza again, because he thinks that religion is fictional, and he thinks that therefore its status is neither true nor false, and in a sense truth and falsity just don't really pertain to religion. Religion's job is to interpret the truth about God to people in a way that they can understand. So its role is to tell stories, to interpret sort of the truth about the world to people, and therefore its aim is not to tell the truth or even to discover the truth, its aim is to make people behave better, and to keep people obedient.
Now that sounds rather sinister, but actually Spinoza thinks that's good thing. It's a good thing because most people are irrational most of the time, he thinks. Most people live according to their imagination. So they're driven by their experiences, by the feelings that they associate with their experiences, by different chains of association which differ from person to person. And when people are irrational, they tend to come into conflict with each other; they tend to desire the same things, and they fight over those things, and people don't get along very easily.
So the role of religion is really in controlling and kind of helping to manage people's feelings and images when they're in this irrational state. And Spinoza's aim is always for people to become more rational and to be able to govern themselves through their own true knowledge about the world. But he's kind of realistic about the prospects of that happening, and since he doesn't see humanity becoming enormously rational any time soon, he tends to think that structures like religion are necessary to keep people in line.
Alan Saunders: On ABC Radio National, you're with The Philosopher's Zone, and I'm talking to Beth Lord from the University of Dundee about Spinoza's God, who seems to be an atheist's God.
Beth, from what you've just said, it sounds as though what Spinoza might be hoping is that eventually we'll be able to do without these fictions, that we will learn to behave irrationally, and we can put the fictional God behind us.
Beth Lord: Spinoza certainly would hope that we could do that, that human beings could become more and more and more rational, and when human beings are more and more and more rational, they understand themselves better and furthermore they come into communities with other rational human beings and they're able to manage themselves almost automatically without having to have organising structures like religion or politics.
However, Spinoza is also quite realistic about whether this might be possible. He doesn't really believe in this kind of ideal perfect rational community, or rather he doesn't believe that it could really come about. And the reason for that is that human beings are inevitably governed by images and feelings. We can't take ourselves out of the world of finite objects, such that we could somehow become unaffected by the things that we interact with.
It is of the nature to be a finite being, such as ourselves, that we are constantly interacting with other people, with other things. We need other things like food and water and shelter in order to keep ourselves alive, but furthermore we need these human interactions in order to do the things we do, and in order to keep ourselves going.
And when we interact with things, we are inevitably affected by them. And when we are affected by things, we tend to be overcome by our feelings, our passions, and those passions really cloud over our rational knowledge, and make it pretty unlikely that we're ever going to become 100% rational. So the best that Spinoza thinks we can hope for is that everybody becomes a little bit more rational than they were when they started life, and he does think that's a realistic prospect.
Alan Saunders: The definition of God which I mentioned at the beginning of the Ethics, is extremely similar to the definition put forward by the great mediaeval Jewish philosopher, Moses Maimonides. Now Maimonides was also a Rabbi; I assume that really Spinoza is turning his back on a whole tradition of thinking about God, and he's turning his back on his contemporaries as well, like Descartes, isn't he?
Beth Lord: He is. I mean certainly Spinoza was thoroughly familiar with Maimonides, with Aristotle, with Plato, with Descartes and with a number of other thinkers from the classical and mediaeval traditions. Really he's turning his back on any theistic conception of God. So I think Maimonides is a kind of crucial turning point, because Maimonides of course is bringing the language of Aristotle into religious questions. But Maimonides doesn't quite make the move that Spinoza does to equating God entirely with 'being' I think.
Alan Saunders: And I presume one thing about Maimonides' God is that he is the God of the Old Testament, he does rule providentially over the universe and Spinoza's God presumably doesn't do that.
Beth Lord: That's right. Spinoza denies that God is a legislator, he denies that God is interested in human affairs, he denies that God is interested in intervening in human affairs. So Spinoza is really critical of the anthropomorphic notion of a God who kind of sits up there in Heaven and judges human actions and human behaviour. And Spinoza's God doesn't do any of those things of course, because God is being. God doesn't make judgments about good and evil or about rewarding good behaviour or punishing bad behaviour or anything like that.
So it's really a very radical shift in the notion of what God is and what God does. God just is is nature and God's being just goes on and on indefinitely, infinitely in fact. And God is really indifferent, Spinoza's God is really indifferent to human suffering and human actions.
Alan Saunders: So where does divine love, which as I mentioned, is discussed at the end of the Ethics, where does divine love come into it?
Beth Lord: This is a really interesting question because for many readers of Spinoza when you get to the end of the Ethics and Spinoza starts talking about eternal being and divine love, it's very strange; it almost seems that Spinoza is reverting to a kind of theological model of thinking about the relationship to God.
This is perhaps best explained through Spinoza's notion of 'blessedness,' and essentially he believes that as we become more and more rational, in other words, we gain more and more true knowledge, we kind of come to understand God more and more. Because God is equivalent to being, or nature, as we come to understand nature more and more, that obviously means we're coming to understand God and more and more.
And understanding God more and more, Spinoza explains, also makes us more and more virtuous. And this is quite an interesting argument because virtue for Spinoza is equivalent to power. He draws on the Latin term virtus which means 'power', and so as we know more and more, we become more and more rational, we also become better at being human beings. We understand ourselves, we understand what's good for us and how to act, and how to become stronger and better at being what we are.
And so as we become more rational, more virtuous, we're sort of climbing up the ladder to greater virtue and knowledge, Spinoza says we also become more blessed. And what he really seems to mean by that is that we kind of regain more and more of our essence as it exists in God.
So human beings, along with all other finite beings, have an essence which exists in God, in being, that it to say for Spinoza. And as we regain more and more of our true essence, what we truly are, it's almost as if we come back to our true nature which is to 'be' in God. And that sort of how Spinoza understands blessedness and the notion of the love of God. It's kind of an affirmation of our being as being part of nature.
Alan Saunders: And the importance of religion, which you've already alluded to, it's not just bringing order to daily life, it actually plays a role in the formation and the perpetuation of political states.
Beth Lord: It does. One of the interesting aspects of the theological political treatise, this is the text that Spinoza wrote, well that he published in 1670 and which was promptly banned and censored all across Europe and was censored for hundreds of years. One of the interesting factors of this text is the way in which Spinoza brings religion and politics together.
So he offers an extensive analysis of the Bible, and he argues that in the Bible and particularly with respect to the Mosaic Law, the laws that Moses got supposedly directly from God, were actually laws about how to govern the State of the Israelites. And Spinoza's pretty clear throughout that politics holds a very similar role to religion.
Political systems, systems of civic laws are fictions in the same way that religion is a fiction. If people were perfectly rational, people would be able to govern themselves without recourse to laws, because everyone would behave according to their true nature, their true essence, and there wouldn't be any conflict or any problems.
But of course people aren't fully rational and therefore people need governance, and they need to be punished when they do the wrong thing and they need to be praised when they do the right thing. And therefore government systems of law work hand-in-hand with religion to keep people in check.
Alan Saunders: Well keep people in check, yes, you said earlier that this could potentially sound slightly sinister and I wonder, it's as though you, I and Spinoza can talk about atheism but not in front of 'the help' in case they get uppity. That's a bit worrying, isn't it?
Beth Lord: Spinoza certainly thinks that there is potential for these fictions, whether they be political or religious fictions, to be used in negative ways. For instance, if you had a leader of a group of people who was himself or herself not very rational and very dependent on their own emotions and passions and images, that person would likely not be a very good leader. They would probably rule tyrannically and they would make use of fictions and affects in order to rule people through fear, and Spinoza's pretty clear that that's a bad form of governance.
And of course religion can also affect fear and loathing among people as well. Again, as people become more and more rational, more and more rational forms of governance and civil state and religion come about. So Spinoza's clear that a democratic civil state is the best kind of political state, and the most rational kind of political state, the one which most allows people most freedom and tolerance among each other.
Alan Saunders: In the 18th century the German writer and philosopher, Novalis, referred to Spinoza as ein Gott betrunkene mensch - a god-intoxicated man. Do you think that despite his notion that God is a fiction, this is an accurate description of Spinoza?
Beth Lord: I do in a sense. It's clear if you read the Epics that the notion of God as Nature is absolutely central to Spinoza's system. And as I was saying earlier, it is important that Nature is called God for Spinoza, because Spinoza thinks that this is what God is.
At the same time, I don't think it's essential that we use the term 'God' when we're talking about Spinoza's God. I often say to my students that, you know, if you don't like the word 'God', it's perfectly acceptable to use the word 'being' or to use the word 'energy' to refer to Spinoza's God or indeed to use the word 'nature' as he sometimes does.
So while I think Spinoza had good reason for using the word 'God' and while I think he believed that this is what God is, that God is being, nevertheless I think he thinks the word 'God' is really just a word, and we don't necessarily have to use that word.
Alan Saunders: Well for more on Spinoza or to share your thoughts on him, or for that matter, God, or Nature, with us and your fellow listeners, check our our website.
Beth Lord, thank you very much for joining us today.
Beth Lord: Thank you.
Alan Saunders: Beth Lord teaches philosophy at the University of Dundee. And she's the Director of the Spinoza Research Network, which itself has an extensive web page devoted to all things Spinozastic, including original texts by Spinoza and others, and an archive of podcasts dealing with the man and his thought. Links to that too on our website.
The show is produced by Kyla Slaven, Charlie McCune is the sound engineer, I'm Alan Saunders and I'll be back next week with another Philosopher's Zone.
My position for those that don't know .. LOL .. my position on religion is basically as Spinosa's as outlined above. And as Dawkin's, too, as i have said before i do have trouble with the word God, as evident in my use of the word Sod.
Sod is not meant to be harsh or vicious .. LOL .. it just happened one day .. just started using it .. it feels more grounded to me .. heh .. than God .. in conclusion i know, one day 'God' WILL come closer to home for more .. back to earth from whence the concept came .. thank Sod .. :)
Harold Camping speaks during a taping of his show "Open Forum" in Oakland, Calif., May 23, 2011 - two days after the 89-year-old had said the Earth would end. (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez)
By David S Morgan June 13, 2011 8:58 AM
(CBS News) Last Updated 2:38 p.m. ET
Harold Camping, the Family Radio minister who inaccurately predicted that the world would experience Judgment Day last May 21, has suffered a stroke.
Camping, the 89-year-old head of the Oakland-based evangelical media company, suffered a stroke on Thursday night after a radio broadcast and was taken to a local hospital, according to a message posted on a Family Radio-oriented Yahoo group by Charlie Menut, station manager of Family Radio affiliate WFME.
A neighbor of Camping told the Oakland Tribune [ http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_18255207 ] that the Alameda minister was taken by ambulance from his house Thursday night.
The unnamed neighbor said she had spoken with Camping's wife Shirley on Friday and was told the radio evangelist is doing "OK," although his speech is "a little bit slurred."
Family Radio is expected to give an update on Camping's condition on Monday.
The fundamentalist minister had led his Christian followers to believe Saturday, May 21, 2011, marked the Rapture and the countdown to Judgment Day.
The day after, Camping told a San Francisco Chronicle reporter he was "flabbergasted" when the predicted End Times did not materialize.
In related news. Agence France-Presse is reporting a Malwai man has plead guilty to circulating false documents, after handing out fliers published by Camping's Family Radio that predicted the Rapture would take place on May 21.
Saduki Mwambene, 39, was arrested in April for distributing false documents "that threatened the peace and security of citizens," according to an official at the magistrate's court in Chitipa district, Malawi.
Mwambene was granted bail and was ordered to report back after May 21 to ensure the information was false.
At a hearing Saturday, he pleaded guilty and was given a six-month suspended sentence. The official said Mwambene was repentant and said he would never again be influenced by "false prophets,"
Can science and the truth withstand the merchants of poison?
By Al Gore June 22, 2011 7:45 AM ET
The first time I remember hearing the question "is it real?" was when I went as a young boy to see a traveling show put on by "professional wrestlers" one summer evening in the gym of the Forks River Elementary School in Elmwood, Tennessee.
The evidence that it was real was palpable: "They're really hurting each other! That's real blood! Look a'there! They can't fake that!" On the other hand, there was clearly a script (or in today's language, a "narrative"), with good guys to cheer and bad guys to boo.
But the most unusual and in some ways most interesting character in these dramas was the referee: Whenever the bad guy committed a gross and obvious violation of the "rules" — such as they were — like using a metal folding chair to smack the good guy in the head, the referee always seemed to be preoccupied with one of the cornermen, or looking the other way. Yet whenever the good guy — after absorbing more abuse and unfairness than any reasonable person could tolerate — committed the slightest infraction, the referee was all over him. The answer to the question "Is it real?" seemed connected to the question of whether the referee was somehow confused about his role: Was he too an entertainer?
That is pretty much the role now being played by most of the news media in refereeing the current wrestling match over whether global warming is "real," and whether it has any connection to the constant dumping of 90 million tons of heat-trapping emissions into the Earth's thin shell of atmosphere every 24 hours.
Admittedly, the contest over global warming is a challenge for the referee because it's a tag-team match, a real free-for-all. In one corner of the ring are Science and Reason. In the other corner: Poisonous Polluters and Right-wing Ideologues.
The referee — in this analogy, the news media — seems confused about whether he is in the news business or the entertainment business. Is he responsible for ensuring a fair match? Or is he part of the show, selling tickets and building the audience? The referee certainly seems distracted: by Donald Trump, Charlie Sheen, the latest reality show — the list of serial obsessions is too long to enumerate here.
But whatever the cause, the referee appears not to notice that the Polluters and Ideologues are trampling all over the "rules" of democratic discourse. They are financing pseudoscientists whose job is to manufacture doubt about what is true and what is false; buying elected officials wholesale with bribes that the politicians themselves have made "legal" and can now be made in secret; spending hundreds of millions of dollars each year on misleading advertisements in the mass media; hiring four anti-climate lobbyists for every member of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. (Question: Would Michael Jordan have been a star if he was covered by four defensive players every step he took on the basketball court?)
This script, of course, is not entirely new: A half-century ago, when Science and Reason established the linkage between cigarettes and lung diseases, the tobacco industry hired actors, dressed them up as doctors, and paid them to look into television cameras and tell people that the linkage revealed in the Surgeon General's Report was not real at all. The show went on for decades, with more Americans killed each year by cigarettes than all of the U.S. soldiers killed in all of World War II.
This time, the scientific consensus is even stronger. It has been endorsed by every National Academy of science of every major country on the planet, every major professional scientific society related to the study of global warming and 98 percent of climate scientists throughout the world. In the latest and most authoritative study by 3,000 of the very best scientific experts in the world, the evidence was judged "unequivocal."
But wait! The good guys transgressed the rules of decorum, as evidenced in their private e-mails that were stolen and put on the Internet. The referee is all over it: Penalty! Go to your corner! And in their 3,000-page report, the scientists made some mistakes! Another penalty!
And if more of the audience is left confused about whether the climate crisis is real? Well, the show must go on. After all, it's entertainment. There are tickets to be sold, eyeballs to glue to the screen.
Part of the script for this show was leaked to The New York Times as early as 1991. In an internal document, a consortium of the largest global-warming polluters spelled out their principal strategy: "Reposition global warming as theory, rather than fact." Ever since, they have been sowing doubt even more effectively than the tobacco companies before them.
To sell their false narrative, the Polluters and Ideologues have found it essential to undermine the public's respect for Science and Reason by attacking the integrity of the climate scientists. That is why the scientists are regularly accused of falsifying evidence and exaggerating its implications in a greedy effort to win more research grants, or secretly pursuing a hidden political agenda to expand the power of government. Such slanderous insults are deeply ironic: extremist ideologues — many financed or employed by carbon polluters — accusing scientists of being greedy extremist ideologues.
After World War II, a philosopher studying the impact of organized propaganda on the quality of democratic debate wrote, "The conversion of all questions of truth into questions of power has attacked the very heart of the distinction between true and false."
Is the climate crisis real? Yes, of course it is. Pause for a moment to consider these events of just the past 12 months:
• Heat. According to NASA, 2010 was tied with 2005 as the hottest year measured since instruments were first used systematically in the 1880s. Nineteen countries set all-time high temperature records. One city in Pakistan, Mohenjo-Daro, reached 128.3 degrees Fahrenheit, the hottest temperature ever measured in an Asian city. Nine of the 10 hottest years in history have occurred in the last 13 years. The past decade was the hottest ever measured, even though half of that decade represented a "solar minimum" — the low ebb in the natural cycle of solar energy emanating from the sun.
• Floods. Megafloods displaced 20 million people in Pakistan, further destabilizing a nuclear-armed country; inundated an area of Australia larger than Germany and France combined; flooded 28 of the 32 districts that make up Colombia, where it has rained almost continuously for the past year; caused a "thousand-year" flood in my home city of Nashville; and led to all-time record flood levels in the Mississippi River Valley. Many places around the world are now experiencing larger and more frequent extreme downpours and snowstorms; last year's "Snowmaggedon" in the northeastern United States is part of the same pattern, notwithstanding the guffaws of deniers.
• Drought. Historic drought and fires in Russia killed an estimated 56,000 people and caused wheat and other food crops in Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan to be removed from the global market, contributing to a record spike in food prices. "Practically everything is burning," Russian president Dmitry Medvedev declared. "What's happening with the planet's climate right now needs to be a wake-up call to all of us." The drought level in much of Texas has been raised from "extreme" to "exceptional," the highest category. This spring the majority of the counties in Texas were on fire, and Gov. Rick Perry requested a major disaster declaration for all but two of the state's 254 counties. Arizona is now fighting the largest fire in its history. Since 1970, the fire season throughout the American West has increased by 78 days. Extreme droughts in central China and northern France are currently drying up reservoirs and killing crops.
• Melting Ice. An enormous mass of ice, four times larger than the island of Manhattan, broke off from northern Greenland last year and slipped into the sea. The acceleration of ice loss in both Greenland and Antarctica has caused another upward revision of global sea-level rise and the numbers of refugees expected from low-lying coastal areas. The Arctic ice cap, which reached a record low volume last year, has lost as much as 40 percent of its area during summer in just 30 years.
These extreme events are happening in real time. It is not uncommon for the nightly newscast to resemble a nature hike through the Book of Revelation. Yet most of the news media completely ignore how such events are connected to the climate crisis, or dismiss the connection as controversial; after all, there are scientists on one side of the debate and deniers on the other. A Fox News executive, in an internal e-mail to the network's reporters and editors that later became public, questioned the "veracity of climate change data" and ordered the journalists to "refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question."
But in the "real" world, the record droughts, fires, floods and mudslides continue to increase in severity and frequency. Leading climate scientists like Jim Hansen and Kevin Trenberth now say that events like these would almost certainly not be occurring without the influence of man-made global warming. And that's a shift in the way they frame these impacts. Scientists used to caution that we were increasing the probability of such extreme events by "loading the dice" — pumping more carbon into the atmosphere. Now the scientists go much further, warning that we are "painting more dots on the dice." We are not only more likely to roll 12s; we are now rolling 13s and 14s. In other words, the biggest storms are not only becoming more frequent, they are getting bigger, stronger and more destructive.
"The only plausible explanation for the rise in weather-related catastrophes is climate change," Munich Re, one of the two largest reinsurance companies in the world, recently stated. "The view that weather extremes are more frequent and intense due to global warming coincides with the current state of scientific knowledge."
Many of the extreme and destructive events are the result of the rapid increase in the amount of heat energy from the sun that is trapped in the atmosphere, which is radically disrupting the planet's water cycle. More heat energy evaporates more water into the air, and the warmer air holds a lot more moisture. This has huge consequences that we now see all around the world.
When a storm unleashes a downpour of rain or snow, the precipitation does not originate just in the part of the sky directly above where it falls. Storms reach out — sometimes as far as 2,000 miles — to suck in water vapor from large areas of the sky, including the skies above oceans, where water vapor has increased by four percent in just the last 30 years. (Scientists often compare this phenomenon to what happens in a bathtub when you open the drain; the water rushing out comes from the whole tub, not just from the part of the tub directly above the drain. And when the tub is filled with more water, more goes down the drain. In the same way, when the warmer sky is filled with a lot more water vapor, there are bigger downpours when a storm cell opens the "drain.")
In many areas, these bigger downpours also mean longer periods between storms — at the same time that the extra heat in the air is also drying out the soil. That is part of the reason so many areas have been experiencing both record floods and deeper, longer-lasting droughts.
Moreover, the scientists have been warning us for quite some time — in increasingly urgent tones — that things will get much, much worse if we continue the reckless dumping of more and more heat-trapping pollution into the atmosphere. Drought is projected to spread across significant, highly populated areas of the globe throughout this century. Look at what the scientists say is in store for the Mediterranean nations. Should we care about the loss of Spain, France, Italy, the Balkans, Turkey, Tunisia? Look at what they say is in store for Mexico. Should we notice? Should we care?
Maybe it's just easier, psychologically, to swallow the lie that these scientists who devote their lives to their work are actually greedy deceivers and left-wing extremists — and that we should instead put our faith in the pseudoscientists financed by large carbon polluters whose business plans depend on their continued use of the atmospheric commons as a place to dump their gaseous, heat-trapping waste without limit or constraint, free of charge.
The truth is this: What we are doing is functionally insane. If we do not change this pattern, we will condemn our children and all future generations to struggle with ecological curses for several millennia to come. Twenty percent of the global-warming pollution we spew into the sky each day will still be there 20,000 years from now!
We do have another choice. Renewable energy sources are coming into their own. Both solar and wind will soon produce power at costs that are competitive with fossil fuels; indications are that twice as many solar installations were erected worldwide last year as compared to 2009. The reductions in cost and the improvements in efficiency of photovoltaic cells over the past decade appear to be following an exponential curve that resembles a less dramatic but still startling version of what happened with computer chips over the past 50 years.
Enhanced geothermal energy is potentially a nearly limitless source of competitive electricity. Increased energy efficiency is already saving businesses money and reducing emissions significantly. New generations of biomass energy — ones that do not rely on food crops, unlike the mistaken strategy of making ethanol from corn — are extremely promising. Sustainable forestry and agriculture both make economic as well as environmental sense. And all of these options would spread even more rapidly if we stopped subsidizing Big Oil and Coal and put a price on carbon that reflected the true cost of fossil energy — either through the much-maligned cap-and-trade approach, or through a revenue-neutral tax swap.
All over the world, the grassroots movement in favor of changing public policies to confront the climate crisis and build a more prosperous, sustainable future is growing rapidly. But most governments remain paralyzed, unable to take action — even after years of volatile gasoline prices, repeated wars in the Persian Gulf, one energy-related disaster after another, and a seemingly endless stream of unprecedented and lethal weather disasters.
Continuing on our current course would be suicidal for global civilization. But the key question is: How do we drive home that fact in a democratic society when questions of truth have been converted into questions of power? When the distinction between what is true and what is false is being attacked relentlessly, and when the referee in the contest between truth and falsehood has become an entertainer selling tickets to a phony wrestling match?
The "wrestling ring" in this metaphor is the conversation of democracy. It used to be called the "public square." In ancient Athens, it was the Agora. In the Roman Republic, it was the Forum. In the Egypt of the recent Arab Spring, "Tahrir Square" was both real and metaphorical — encompassing Facebook, Twitter, Al-Jazeera and texting.
In the America of the late-18th century, the conversation that led to our own "Spring" took place in printed words: pamphlets, newsprint, books, the "Republic of Letters." It represented the fullest flower of the Enlightenment, during which the oligarchic power of the monarchies, the feudal lords and the Medieval Church was overthrown and replaced with a new sovereign: the Rule of Reason.
The public square that gave birth to the new consciousness of the Enlightenment emerged in the dozen generations following the invention of the printing press — "the Gutenberg Galaxy," the scholar Marshall McLuhan called it — a space in which the conversation of democracy was almost equally accessible to every literate person. Individuals could both find the knowledge that had previously been restricted to elites and contribute their own ideas.
Ideas that found resonance with others rose in prominence much the way Google searches do today, finding an ever larger audience and becoming a source of political power for individuals with neither wealth nor force of arms. Thomas Paine, to take one example, emigrated from England to Philadelphia with no wealth, no family connections and no power other than that which came from his ability to think and write clearly — yet his Common Sense became the Harry Potter of Revolutionary America. The "public interest" mattered, was actively discussed and pursued.
But the "public square" that gave birth to America has been transformed beyond all recognition. The conversation that matters most to the shaping of the "public mind" now takes place on television. Newspapers and magazines are in decline. The Internet, still in its early days, will one day support business models that make true journalism profitable — but up until now, the only successful news websites aggregate content from struggling print publications. Web versions of the newspapers themselves are, with few exceptions, not yet making money. They bring to mind the classic image of Wile E. Coyote running furiously in midair just beyond the edge of the cliff, before plummeting to the desert floor far beneath him.
The average American, meanwhile, is watching television an astonishing five hours a day. In the average household, at least one television set is turned on more than eight hours a day. Moreover, approximately 75 percent of those using the Internet frequently watch television at the same time that they are online.
Unlike access to the "public square" of early America, access to television requires large amounts of money. Thomas Paine could walk out of his front door in Philadelphia and find a dozen competing, low-cost print shops within blocks of his home. Today, if he traveled to the nearest TV station, or to the headquarters of nearby Comcast — the dominant television provider in America — and tried to deliver his new ideas to the American people, he would be laughed off the premises. The public square that used to be a commons has been refeudalized, and the gatekeepers charge large rents for the privilege of communicating to the American people over the only medium that really affects their thinking. "Citizens" are now referred to more commonly as "consumers" or "the audience."
That is why up to 80 percent of the campaign budgets for candidates in both major political parties is devoted to the purchase of 30-second TV ads. Since the rates charged for these commercials increase each year, the candidates are forced to raise more and more money in each two-year campaign cycle.
Of course, the only reliable sources from which such large sums can be raised continuously are business lobbies. Organized labor, a shadow of its former self, struggles to compete, and individuals are limited by law to making small contributions. During the 2008 campaign, there was a bubble of hope that Internet-based fundraising might even the scales, but in the end, Democrats as well as Republicans relied far more on traditional sources of large contributions. Moreover, the recent deregulation of unlimited — and secret — donations by wealthy corporations has made the imbalance even worse.
In the new ecology of political discourse, special-interest contributors of the large sums of money now required for the privilege of addressing voters on a wholesale basis are not squeamish about asking for the quo they expect in return for their quid. Politicians who don't acquiesce don't get the money they need to be elected and re-elected. And the impact is doubled when special interests make clear — usually bluntly — that the money they are withholding will go instead to opponents who are more than happy to pledge the desired quo. Politicians have been racing to the bottom for some time, and are presently tunneling to new depths. It is now commonplace for congressmen and senators first elected decades ago — as I was — to comment in private that the whole process has become unbelievably crass, degrading and horribly destructive to the core values of American democracy.
Largely as a result, the concerns of the wealthiest individuals and corporations routinely trump the concerns of average Americans and small businesses. There are a ridiculously large number of examples: eliminating the inheritance tax paid by the wealthiest one percent of families is considered a much higher priority than addressing the suffering of the millions of long-term unemployed; Wall Street's interest in legalizing gambling in trillions of dollars of "derivatives" was considered way more important than protecting the integrity of the financial system and the interests of middle-income home buyers. It's a long list.
Almost every group organized to promote and protect the "public interest" has been backpedaling and on the defensive. By sharp contrast, when a coalition of powerful special interests sets out to manipulate U.S. policy, their impact can be startling — and the damage to the true national interest can be devastating.
In 2002, for example, the feverish desire to invade Iraq required convincing the American people that Saddam Hussein was somehow responsible for attacking the United States on September 11th, 2001, and that he was preparing to attack us again, perhaps with nuclear weapons. When the evidence — the "facts" — stood in the way of that effort to shape the public mind, they were ridiculed, maligned and ignored. Behind the scenes, the intelligence was manipulated and the public was intentionally deceived. Allies were pressured to adopt the same approach with their publics. A recent inquiry in the U.K. confirmed this yet again. "We knew at the time that the purpose of the dossier was precisely to make a case for war, rather than setting out the available intelligence," Maj. Gen. Michael Laurie testified. "To make the best out of sparse and inconclusive intelligence, the wording was developed with care." Why? As British intelligence put it, the overthrow of Saddam was "a prize because it could give new security to oil supplies."
That goal — the real goal — could have been debated on its own terms. But as Bush administration officials have acknowledged, a truly candid presentation would not have resulted in sufficient public support for the launching of a new war. They knew that because they had studied it and polled it. So they manipulated the debate, downplayed the real motive for the invasion, and made a different case to the public — one based on falsehoods.
And the "referee" — the news media — looked the other way. Some, like Fox News, were hyperactive cheerleaders. Others were intimidated into going along by the vitriol heaped on any who asked inconvenient questions. (They know it; many now acknowledge it, sheepishly and apologetically.)
Senators themselves fell, with a few honorable exceptions, into the same two camps. A few weeks before the United States invaded Iraq, the late Robert Byrd — God rest his soul — thundered on the Senate floor about the pitiful quality of the debate over the choice between war and peace: "Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent — ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing."
The chamber was silent, in part, because many senators were somewhere else — attending cocktail parties and receptions, largely with special-interest donors, raising money to buy TV ads for their next campaigns. Nowadays, in fact, the scheduling of many special-interest fundraisers mirrors the schedule of votes pending in the House and Senate.
By the time we invaded Iraq, polls showed, nearly three-quarters of the American people were convinced that the person responsible for the planes flying into the World Trade Center Towers was indeed Saddam Hussein. The rest is history — though, as Faulkner wrote, "The past is never dead. It's not even past." Because of that distortion of the truth in the past, we are still in Iraq; and because the bulk of our troops and intelligence assets were abruptly diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq, we are also still in Afghanistan.
In the same way, because the banks had their way with Congress when it came to gambling on unregulated derivatives and recklessly endangering credit markets with subprime mortgages, we still have almost double-digit unemployment, historic deficits, Greece and possibly other European countries teetering on the edge of default, and the threat of a double-dip recession. Even the potential default of the United States of America is now being treated by many politicians and too many in the media as yet another phony wrestling match, a political game. Are the potential economic consequences of a U.S. default "real"? Of course they are! Have we gone completely nuts?
We haven't gone nuts — but the "conversation of democracy" has become so deeply dysfunctional that our ability to make intelligent collective decisions has been seriously impaired. Throughout American history, we relied on the vibrancy of our public square — and the quality of our democratic discourse — to make better decisions than most nations in the history of the world. But we are now routinely making really bad decisions that completely ignore the best available evidence of what is true and what is false. When the distinction between truth and falsehood is systematically attacked without shame or consequence — when a great nation makes crucially important decisions on the basis of completely false information that is no longer adequately filtered through the fact-checking function of a healthy and honest public discussion — the public interest is severely damaged.
That is exactly what is happening with U.S. decisions regarding the climate crisis. The best available evidence demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that the reckless spewing of global-warming pollution in obscene quantities into the atmospheric commons is having exactly the consequences long predicted by scientists who have analyzed the known facts according to the laws of physics.
The emergence of the climate crisis seems sudden only because of a relatively recent discontinuity in the relationship between human civilization and the planet's ecological system. In the past century, we have quadrupled global population while relying on the burning of carbon-based fuels — coal, oil and gas — for 85 percent of the world's energy. We are also cutting and burning forests that would otherwise help remove some of the added CO2 from the atmosphere, and have converted agriculture to an industrial model that also runs on carbon-based fuels and strip-mines carbon-rich soils.
The cumulative result is a radically new reality — and since human nature makes us vulnerable to confusing the unprecedented with the improbable, it naturally seems difficult to accept. Moreover, since this new reality is painful to contemplate, and requires big changes in policy and behavior that are at the outer limit of our ability, it is all too easy to fall into the psychological state of denial. As with financial issues like subprime mortgages and credit default swaps, the climate crisis can seem too complex to worry about, especially when the shills for the polluters constantly claim it's all a hoax anyway. And since the early impacts of climatic disruption are distributed globally, they masquerade as an abstraction that is safe to ignore.
These vulnerabilities, rooted in our human nature, are being manipulated by the tag-team of Polluters and Ideologues who are trying to deceive us. And the referee — the news media — is once again distracted. As with the invasion of Iraq, some are hyperactive cheerleaders for the deception, while others are intimidated into complicity, timidity and silence by the astonishing vitriol heaped upon those who dare to present the best evidence in a professional manner. Just as TV networks who beat the drums of war prior to the Iraq invasion were rewarded with higher ratings, networks now seem reluctant to present the truth about the link between carbon pollution and global warming out of fear that conservative viewers will change the channel — and fear that they will receive a torrent of flame e-mails from deniers.
Many politicians, unfortunately, also fall into the same two categories: those who cheerlead for the deniers and those who cower before them. The latter group now includes several candidates for the Republican presidential nomination who have felt it necessary to abandon their previous support for action on the climate crisis; at least one has been apologizing profusely to the deniers and begging for their forgiveness.
"Intimidation" and "timidity" are connected by more than a shared word root. The first is designed to produce the second. As Yeats wrote almost a century ago, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."
Barack Obama's approach to the climate crisis represents a special case that requires careful analysis. His election was accompanied by intense hope that many things in need of change would change. Some things have, but others have not. Climate policy, unfortunately, is in the second category. Why?
First of all, anyone who honestly examines the incredible challenges confronting President Obama when he took office has to feel enormous empathy for him: the Great Recession, with the high unemployment and the enormous public and private indebtedness it produced; two seemingly interminable wars; an intractable political opposition whose true leaders — entertainers masquerading as pundits — openly declared that their objective was to ensure that the new president failed; a badly broken Senate that is almost completely paralyzed by the threat of filibuster and is controlled lock, stock and barrel by the oil and coal industries; a contingent of nominal supporters in Congress who are indentured servants of the same special interests that control most of the Republican Party; and a ferocious, well-financed and dishonest campaign poised to vilify anyone who dares offer leadership for the reduction of global-warming pollution.
In spite of these obstacles, President Obama included significant climate-friendly initiatives in the economic stimulus package he presented to Congress during his first month in office. With the skillful leadership of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and committee chairmen Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, he helped secure passage of a cap-and-trade measure in the House a few months later. He implemented historic improvements in fuel-efficiency standards for automobiles, and instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to move forward on the regulation of global-warming pollution under the Clean Air Act. He appointed many excellent men and women to key positions, and they, in turn, have made hundreds of changes in environmental and energy policy that have helped move the country forward slightly on the climate issue. During his first six months, he clearly articulated the link between environmental security, economic security and national security — making the case that a national commitment to renewable energy could simultaneously reduce unemployment, dependence on foreign oil and vulnerability to the disruption of oil markets dominated by the Persian Gulf reserves. And more recently, as the issue of long-term debt has forced discussion of new revenue, he proposed the elimination of unnecessary and expensive subsidies for oil and gas.
But in spite of these and other achievements, President Obama has thus far failed to use the bully pulpit to make the case for bold action on climate change. After successfully passing his green stimulus package, he did nothing to defend it when Congress decimated its funding. After the House passed cap and trade, he did little to make passage in the Senate a priority. Senate advocates — including one Republican — felt abandoned when the president made concessions to oil and coal companies without asking for anything in return. He has also called for a massive expansion of oil drilling in the United States, apparently in an effort to defuse criticism from those who argue speciously that "drill, baby, drill" is the answer to our growing dependence on foreign oil.
The failure to pass legislation to limit global-warming pollution ensured that the much-anticipated Copenhagen summit on a global treaty in 2009 would also end in failure. The president showed courage in attending the summit and securing a rhetorical agreement to prevent a complete collapse of the international process, but that's all it was — a rhetorical agreement. During the final years of the Bush-Cheney administration, the rest of the world was waiting for a new president who would aggressively tackle the climate crisis — and when it became clear that there would be no real change from the Bush era, the agenda at Copenhagen changed from "How do we complete this historic breakthrough?" to "How can we paper over this embarrassing disappointment?"
Some concluded from the failure in Copenhagen that it was time to give up on the entire U.N.-sponsored process for seeking an international agreement to reduce both global-warming pollution and deforestation. Ultimately, however, the only way to address the climate crisis will be with a global agreement that in one way or another puts a price on carbon. And whatever approach is eventually chosen, the U.S. simply must provide leadership by changing our own policy.
Yet without presidential leadership that focuses intensely on making the public aware of the reality we face, nothing will change. The real power of any president, as Richard Neustadt wrote, is "the power to persuade." Yet President Obama has never presented to the American people the magnitude of the climate crisis. He has simply not made the case for action. He has not defended the science against the ongoing, withering and dishonest attacks. Nor has he provided a presidential venue for the scientific community — including our own National Academy — to bring the reality of the science before the public.
Here is the core of it: we are destroying the climate balance that is essential to the survival of our civilization. This is not a distant or abstract threat; it is happening now. The United States is the only nation that can rally a global effort to save our future. And the president is the only person who can rally the United States.
Many political advisers assume that a president has to deal with the world of politics as he finds it, and that it is unwise to risk political capital on an effort to actually lead the country toward a new understanding of the real threats and real opportunities we face. Concentrate on the politics of re-election, they say. Don't take chances.
All that might be completely understandable and make perfect sense in a world where the climate crisis wasn't "real." Those of us who support and admire President Obama understand how difficult the politics of this issue are in the context of the massive opposition to doing anything at all — or even to recognizing that there is a crisis. And assuming that the Republicans come to their senses and avoid nominating a clown, his re-election is likely to involve a hard-fought battle with high stakes for the country. All of his supporters understand that it would be self-defeating to weaken Obama and heighten the risk of another step backward. Even writing an article like this one carries risks; opponents of the president will excerpt the criticism and strip it of context.
But in this case, the President has reality on his side. The scientific consensus is far stronger today than at any time in the past. Here is the truth: The Earth is round; Saddam Hussein did not attack us on 9/11; Elvis is dead; Obama was born in the United States; and the climate crisis is real. It is time to act.
Those who profit from the unconstrained pollution that is the primary cause of climate change are determined to block our perception of this reality. They have help from many sides: from the private sector, which is now free to make unlimited and secret campaign contributions; from politicians who have conflated their tenures in office with the pursuit of the people's best interests; and — tragically — from the press itself, which treats deception and falsehood on the same plane as scientific fact, and calls it objective reporting of alternative opinions.
All things are not equally true. It is time to face reality. We ignored reality in the marketplace and nearly destroyed the world economic system. We are likewise ignoring reality in the environment, and the consequences could be several orders of magnitude worse. Determining what is real can be a challenge in our culture, but in order to make wise choices in the presence of such grave risks, we must use common sense and the rule of reason in coming to an agreement on what is true.
So how can we make it happen? How can we as individuals make a difference? In five basic ways:
First, become a committed advocate for solving the crisis. You can start with something simple: Speak up whenever the subject of climate arises. When a friend or acquaintance expresses doubt that the crisis is real, or that it's some sort of hoax, don't let the opportunity pass to put down your personal marker. The civil rights revolution may have been driven by activists who put their lives on the line, but it was partly won by average Americans who began to challenge racist comments in everyday conversations.
Second, deepen your commitment by making consumer choices that reduce energy use and reduce your impact on the environment. The demand by individuals for change in the marketplace has already led many businesses to take truly significant steps to reduce their global-warming pollution. Some of the corporate changes are more symbolic than real — "green-washing," as it's called — but a surprising amount of real progress is taking place. Walmart, to pick one example, is moving aggressively to cut its carbon footprint by 20 million metric tons, in part by pressuring its suppliers to cut down on wasteful packaging and use lower-carbon transportation alternatives. Reward those companies that are providing leadership.
Third, join an organization committed to action on this issue. The Alliance for Climate Protection (climateprotect.org), which I chair, has grassroots action plans for the summer and fall that spell out lots of ways to fight effectively for the policy changes we need. We can also enable you to host a slide show in your community on solutions to the climate crisis — presented by one of the 4,000 volunteers we have trained. Invite your friends and neighbors to come and then enlist them to join the cause.
Fourth, contact your local newspapers and television stations when they put out claptrap on climate — and let them know you're fed up with their stubborn and cowardly resistance to reporting the facts of this issue. One of the main reasons they are so wimpy and irresponsible about global warming is that they're frightened of the reaction they get from the deniers when they report the science objectively. So let them know that deniers are not the only ones in town with game. Stay on them! Don't let up! It's true that some media outlets are getting instructions from their owners on this issue, and that others are influenced by big advertisers, but many of them are surprisingly responsive to a genuine outpouring of opinion from their viewers and readers. It is way past time for the ref to do his job.
Finally, and above all, don't give up on the political system. Even though it is rigged by special interests, it is not so far gone that candidates and elected officials don't have to pay attention to persistent, engaged and committed individuals. President Franklin Roosevelt once told civil rights leaders who were pressing him for change that he agreed with them about the need for greater equality for black Americans. Then, as the story goes, he added with a wry smile, "Now go out and make me do it."
To make our elected leaders take action to solve the climate crisis, we must forcefully communicate the following message: "I care a lot about global warming; I am paying very careful attention to the way you vote and what you say about it; if you are on the wrong side, I am not only going to vote against you, I will work hard to defeat you — regardless of party. If you are on the right side, I will work hard to elect you."
Why do you think President Obama and Congress changed their game on "don't ask, don't tell?" It happened because enough Americans delivered exactly that tough message to candidates who wanted their votes. When enough people care passionately enough to drive that message home on the climate crisis, politicians will look at their hole cards, and enough of them will change their game to make all the difference we need.
This is not naive; trust me on this. It may take more individual voters to beat the Polluters and Ideologues now than it once did — when special-interest money was less dominant. But when enough people speak this way to candidates, and convince them that they are dead serious about it, change will happen — both in Congress and in the White House. As the great abolitionist leader Frederick Douglass once observed, "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will."
What is now at risk in the climate debate is nothing less than our ability to communicate with one another according to a protocol that binds all participants to seek reason and evaluate facts honestly. The ability to perceive reality is a prerequisite for self-governance. Wishful thinking and denial lead to dead ends. When it works, the democratic process helps clear the way toward reality, by exposing false argumentation to the best available evidence. That is why the Constitution affords such unique protection to freedom of the press and of speech.
The climate crisis, in reality, is a struggle for the soul of America. It is about whether or not we are still capable — given the ill health of our democracy and the current dominance of wealth over reason — of perceiving important and complex realities clearly enough to promote and protect the sustainable well-being of the many. What hangs in the balance is the future of civilization as we know it.
In the coming weeks, The Stone will feature occasional posts by Gary Gutting, a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, that apply critical thinking to information and events that have appeared in the news.
Apart from its entertainment value, Harold Camping’s ill-advised prediction of the rapture last month attracted me as a philosopher for its epistemological interest. Epistemology is the study of knowledge, its nature, scope and limits. Camping claimed to know, with certainty and precision, that on May 21, 2011, a series of huge earthquakes would devastate the Earth and be followed by the taking up (rapture) of the saved into heaven. No sensible person could have thought that he knew this. Knowledge requires justification; that is, some rationally persuasive account of why we know what we claim to know. Camping’s confused efforts at Biblical interpretation provided no justification for his prediction. Even if, by some astonishing fluke, he had turned out to be right, he still would not have known the rapture was coming.
Of particular epistemological interest was the rush of Christians who believe that the rapture will occur but specify no date for it to dissociate themselves from Camping. Quoting Jesus’s saying that “of that day and hour no one knows,” they rightly saw their view as unrefuted by Camping’s failed prediction. What they did not notice is that the reasons for rejecting Camping’s prediction also call into question their claim that the rapture will occur at some unspecified future time.
What was most disturbing about Camping was his claim to be certain that the rapture would occur on May 21. Perhaps he had a subjective feeling of certainty about his prediction, but he had no good reasons to think that this feeling was reliable. Similarly, you may feel certain that you will get the job, but this does not make it (objectively) certain that you will. For that you need reasons that justify your feeling.
There are many Christians who are as subjectively certain as Camping about the rapture, except that they do not specify a date. They have a feeling of total confidence that the rapture will someday occur. But do they, unlike Camping, have good reasons behind their feeling of certainty? Does the fact that they leave the date of the rapture unspecified somehow give them the good reason for their certainty that Camping lacked?
An entirely unspecified date has the advantage of making their prediction immune to refutation. The fact that the rapture hasn’t occurred will never prove that it won’t occur in the future. A sense that they will never be refuted may well increase the subjective certainty of those who believe in the rapture, but this does nothing to provide the good reasons needed for objective certainty. Camping, after the fact, himself moved toward making his prediction unrefutable, saying that May 21 had been an “invisible judgment day [ http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/us/24raptureweb.html ],” a spiritual rather than a physical rapture. He kept to his prediction of a final, physical end of the world on October 21, 2011, but no doubt this prediction will also be open to reinterpretation.
Believers in the rapture will likely respond that talk of good reasons and objective certainty assumes a context of empirical (scientific) truth, and ignores the fact that their beliefs are based not on science but on faith. They are certain in their belief that the rapture will occur, even though they don’t know it in the scientific sense.
But Camping too would claim that his certainty that the rapture would occur on May 21, 2011, was a matter of faith. He had no scientific justification for his prediction, so what could have grounded his certainty if not his faith? But the certainty of his faith, we all agree, was merely subjective. Objective certainty about a future event requires good reasons.
Given their faith in the Bible, believers in the rapture do offer what they see as good reasons for their view as opposed to Camping’s. They argue that the Bible clearly predicts a temporally unspecified rapture, whereas Camping’s specific date requires highly questionable numerological reasoning. But many Christians—including many of the best Biblical scholars—do not believe that the Bible predicts a historical rapture. Even those who accept the traditional doctrine of a Second Coming of Christ, preceding the end of the world, often reject the idea of a taking up of the saved into heaven, followed by a period of dreadful tribulations on Earth for those who are left behind. Among believers themselves, a historical rapture is at best a highly controversial interpretation [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/patheos-on-faith/post/harold-camping-mainstream-christians-and-the-rapture/2011/05/25/AGIKKQBH_blog.html ], not an objectively established certainty.
The case against Camping was this: His subjective certainty about the rapture required objectively good reasons to expect its occurrence; he provided no such reasons, so his claim was not worthy of belief. Christians who believe in a temporally unspecified rapture agree with this argument. But the same argument undermines their own belief in the rapture. It’s not just that “no one knows the day and hour” of the rapture. No one knows that it is going to happen at all.
Family Radio Founder Harold Camping Repents, Apologizes for False Teachings
Harold Camping responds to his failed May 21 Judgment Day prediction during a press conference Monday, May 23, 2011, at Family Radio headquarters in Oakland, Calif. (Photo: The Christian Post/ Hudson Tsuei)
Bible Teacher Confesses He Was Wrong to Predict Christ's Return; Says God Has Not Stopped Saving People
By Nicola Menzie | Christian Post Reporter Sun, Oct. 30 2011 12:20 PM EDT
With his speech sounding somewhat slurred and labored, Family Radio Stations Inc. founder and chairman Harold Camping sought to address in a recent message why Christ failed to return on Oct. 21 as the Bible teacher had predicted. Camping confessed, after decades of falsely misleading his followers, that he was wrong and regrets his misdeeds.
In addition to attempting to correct his erroneous teachings on the Rapture and God's day of final judgment on the world, Camping, 90, also confessed, "incidentally," that he was wrong to claim that God had stopped saving people after May 21 – the date which God's so-called "spiritual" judgment had begun.
This is undoubtedly a radical shift for Camping, who has staunchly claimed since 1992 that he had discovered a special numerical system in the Bible that allowed him to calculate the exact dates of certain events, such as the Great Flood, the Crucifixion and the day of Jesus Christ's return to Earth.
Camping first falsely predicted that the world would end on Sept. 6, 1994, then again on May 21, 2011, and finally on Oct. 21.
When Camping's final doomsday predication failed to come to pass, Family Radio soon removed its teachings regarding the failed May 21 rapture, which also included the claim that God had stopped saving people after that date and that the world was headed for a final judgment on Oct. 21.
On Oct. 24, 2011, The Christian Post also reported in an exclusive interview with a member of Camping's Bible ministry that the Alameda, Calif., Bible teacher was no longer able to lead Family Radio or his ministry.
A transcript of the audio message, published to Family Radio's website on Oct. 28, 2011, is below:
We're living in a day when one problem follows another. And when it comes to trying to recognize the truth of prophecy, we're finding that it is very very difficult.
Why didn't Christ return on Oct. 21? It seems embarrassing for Family Radio. But God was in charge of everything. We came to that conclusion after quite careful study of the Bible. He allowed everything to happen the way it did without correction. He could have stopped everything if He had wanted to.
I am very encouraged by letters that I have received and [am] receiving at this time concerning this matter. Amongst other things I have been checking my notes more carefully than ever. And I do find that there is other language in the Bible that we still have to look at very carefully and will impinge upon this question very definitely. And we should be very patient about this matter. At least in a minimal way we are learning to walk more and more humble before God.
We're ready to cry out and weep before God: 'Oh Lord, you have the truth, we don't have it. You have the truth.' And this is another place where we have to cry out for... There's one thing that we must remember – God is in charge of this whole business, and we are not. What God wants to tell us is His business. When He wants to tell us is His business. In the meanwhile, God is allowing us to continue to cry to Him for mercy – oh my, how we need His mercy – and continue to wait on Him. God has not left us. God is still God. But we have to be very careful that we don't dictate to God what He should do.
In our search in the Bible, we must continue to look to the Bible, look to the Bible. Because there is where truth comes from. And God in His own timetable and in His own purposes will reveal truth to us when it's His time to do it. In any case, we do not have to have a feeling of calamity or a feeling that God has abandoned us. We are simply learning. And sometimes it's painful to learn. We are learning how God brings His messages to mankind, and my my, we have claimed to be a child of God, and therefore as we search the Bible, we're bound to feel the darts of the Lord. Sometimes He gives us the truth and sometimes He gives us something that causes us to wait further upon Him.
Whatever we do, we must not feel for a moment that we have been abandoned by God – that He is no longer helping us or interested in us. Oh my, what an encouragement it is to go to the Lord again and again – "Oh Lord, I don't know anything. You teach me." And that's the attitude that has to be apart of each one of us. And God will not abandon us, He will provide, but we have to be just very careful that we don't dictate to him when that has to happen.
Incidentally, I have been told that I said back in May that people who did not believe that May 21 should not be the rapture date, probably had not been saved. I should not have said that, and I apologize for that. One thing we know for certain, is that God is merciful, merciful beyond anything that we would ever expect. And so, we can pray constantly, and should be praying constantly: "Oh Lord, we look to Thee for Thine mercy, and we're so thankful that we know that Thou art so merciful."
How wonderful to know that God is still on the throne, that He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords and that He hears every one of our prayers. And let's not hesitate, let's be, if anything, let's pray more than ever for God's mercy, and keep praying and God will provide. But God is in charge, and we must always keep that in mind.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
