Tyler's Turn Blog

When questioned about global warming on NPR's Morning Edition today, Michael Griffin, the head of NASA, had a pretty startling analysis. (At least, I was startled as I lay in bed listening to the news, instead of getting up to take a shower.) I think his interview represents a new tack for those who want us to not worry about climate change.

As a scientist, Michael Griffin isn't willing to ignore the facts. "I understand that the bulk of scientific evidence accumulated supports the claim that we've had about a one degree centigrade rise in temperature over the last century to within an accuracy of 20 percent," Griffin said. He also conceded that the warming has probably been caused by humans: "I'm also aware of recent findings that appear to have nailed down — pretty well nailed down the conclusion that much of that is manmade."

However, that doesn't mean he's giving any ground to the crazy liberals. Griffin said, "I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."

As my Economics professor was fond of saying, "Always ask, 'Good for who? Bad for who?'"

So, the earth has certainly gotten hotter in the past hundred years, and humans are probably responsible for the warming, but who says that's a bad thing? We certainly don't have any authority to say what's right and wrong, good or bad. That would be the height of arrogance.

And I thought it was the liberals who were relativists. Nope. Post-modern Kool-Aid for everyone.

. . . I do recognize the irony of my posting that last rant on a blog to be read by the whole world. I'm only thirty-eight, after all.

Have we always let young people publish books of philosophy and theology, or is it just a contemporary phenomenon?

By "young people," I mean those under fifty.

As everyone knows, the thing that most troubled me about End of Faith (besides the fact that it was vitriolic) was the lack of historical perspective or a deeper understanding of the religions Sam Harris was lambasting. The book would have been much better if the author had spent another twenty years studying before writing it. Sam Harris is a smart man, and I'm sure he'll do some important thinking in his lifetime. However, I don't think End of Faith represents it.

Now, I'm reading Blue Like Jazz, a book of "Christian spirituality" written by Donald Miller, a man in his twenties. I'm reading the book for a reading club, or I would have put it down after the first ten pages.

The complete lack of historical perspective and scholarly wisdom in this book of theology is absolutely appalling. The simple fact that Miller doesn't know the difference between "Christian spirituality," which he claims to write about, and "Christian theology," which he's actually writing about, is just the first of the book's problems. On every page, I want to scribble, "Think a little more about this, please!" in the margins.

Again, Donald Miller is a pretty smart guy (not Sam Harris material, but still). I just think he needs another thirty years of study and meditation before he's allowed to publish.

Last week, a friend sent me a paragraph she'd written a few years ago. The theology was interesting stuff for a young person, but my friend is now embarrassed by it. With a few years of perspective, she sees the shallowness of her thinking back then. But, here's the thing, no one published it. If she'd tried to publish it, I'm sure an editor would have told her to come back when she was older.

How I miss the days when people felt they actually needed to know something before they signed a publishing contract and blessed the world with their knowledge.