Summary Against Modern Thought: God Hates Nothing

This may be proved in three ways. The first...
This may be proved in three ways. The first…
See the first post in this series for an explanation and guide of our tour of Summa Contra Gentiles. All posts are under the category SAMT.

Previous post.

Three quick chapters will little comment. Well, little is needed. We have more meat next week, when we dip back into eternity. There is some interesting commentary about living beings in Chapter 97.

Chapter 96 The God hates nothing, nor can the hatred of anything be ascribed to Him. (alternate translation)

[1] HENCE it appears that hatred of a thing cannot be ascribed to God…

[3] Again. As we have shown above, God’s will tends to things other than Himself, in as much as, by willing and loving His being and goodness, He wills it to be poured forth, as far as possible, by communicating its likeness. Accordingly that which God wills in things other than Himself, is that the likeness of His goodness be in them. Now the goodness of each thing consists in its partaking of the divine likeness: since every other goodness is nothing but a likeness of the first goodness. Therefore God wills good to everything: and consequently He hates nothing.

[4] Again. From the first being all others take the origin of their being. Wherefore if He hates any one of the things that are, He wills it not to be, because to be is a thing’s good. Hence He wills His action not to be, whereby that thing is brought into being mediately or immediately; for it has been proved above, that if God wills a thing, it follows that He wills whatever is required for that thing. But this is impossible. And this is evident, if things are brought into being by His will, since in that case the action whereby things are produced must be voluntary: and likewise if He be the cause of things naturally, because just as His nature pleases Him, so also everything that His nature requires pleases Him. Therefore God hates not anything…

[7] And yet God is said metaphorically to hate certain things: and this in two ways. First, from the fact that God in loving things, and willing their good to be, wills the contrary evil not to be. Wherefore He is said to hate evils, since we are said to hate that which we will not to be; according to Zach. viii. 17, Let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his friend; and love not a false oath, for all these are the things that I hate, saith the Lord. But such things are not His effects as subsistent things, to which hatred or love are directed properly speaking.

[8] The other way is due to God willing some greater good that cannot be without the privation of a lesser good. And thus He is said to hate, since to do more than this were to love. For, in this way, for as much as He wills the good of justice or of the order of the universe, which good is impossible without the punishment or destruction of some, He is said to hate those whose punishment or destruction He wills; according to Mal. i. 3: I have hated Esau, and the words of the psalm: Thou hatest all the workers of iniquity, thou wilt destroy all that speak a lie: the bloody and the deceitful man the Lord will abhor.

Chapter 97 The God is a living being. (alternate translation)

[1] FROM what has been already proved, it follows of necessity that God is a living being.

[2] For it has been shown that in God there are intelligence and will. Now intelligence and will are only in that which lives. Therefore God is a living being.

[3] Again. Life is ascribed to certain things in as much as they seem to be set in motion of themselves and not by another. For which reason, things which seem to be moved of themselves, the cause of which movement is not perceived by the unlearned, are described metaphorically as living: for instance we speak of the living water of a flowing source, but not of a tank or stagnant pond; and of ‘quick’-silver, which seems to have a kind of movement. For properly speaking those things alone are themselves in motion, which move themselves, being composed of mover and moved, such as animate beings.

Wherefore such things alone are said to live, while all others are moved by some other thing, either as generating them, or as removing an obstacle, or as impelling them. And since sensible operations are accompanied by movement, furthermore whatever moves itself to its proper operations, although these be without movement, is said to live: wherefore intelligence, appetite and sensation are vital actions. Now God especially works not as moved by another but by Himself, since He is the first active cause. Therefore to live is befitting Him above all.

Notes Self-movement, in this mechanical age, is no longer a complete definition of life of course.

Chapter 98 The God is a living being. (alternate translation)

[1] FROM this it further appears that God is His own life.

[2] For life in a living being is the same as to live expressed in the abstract; just as a running is in reality the same as to run. Now in living things to live is to be, as the Philosopher declares (2 De Anima). For since an animal is said to be living because it has a soul whereby it has existence, as it were by its proper form, it follows that to live is nothing but a particular kind of existence resulting from a particular kind of form. Now God is His own existence, as proved above. Therefore He is His own living and His own life.

[3] Again. Intelligence is a kind of life, as the Philosopher declares (2 De Anima): since to live is the act of a living being. Now God is His own act of intelligence, as we have proved. Therefore He is His own living and His own life…

The Pope Is Wrong About Global Warming

ps

God bless Pope Francis. But he is wrong about global warming, and even wronger about “special interests” trying to keep global warming going.

The Holy Father knows a lot more than I ever will about the Catholic faith, but he doesn’t know much about the physics of fluid flow on a rotating sphere, nor is he aware of the difference between scientific claims about reality and reality itself. About these subjects, I know much more than he.

The headline is “Pope in Kenya: Francis Warns Against Special Interests Derailing Climate Talks“.

NAIROBI, Kenya — Pope Francis has warned that it would be “catastrophic” for world leaders to let special interest groups get in the way of a global agreement to curb fossil fuel emissions on the eve of make-or-break climate change talks in Paris.

This is not only wrong, but backwards. The only “special interest groups” to fear are those aiming to make a buck out of global warming, and those seeking to gain political power to fight the unbeatable. Which is to say, “climate change”: it is impossible—not unlikely, impossible—to stop the climate from changing.

Regular readers know that my total lifetime compensation for all the work I have ever done in climatology is in the low four figures, mostly from speaking fees (I average about one compensated speech per year). This wealth is not unusual. All the skeptics I know are similarly rewarded, though it’s true that some make less (yes, less). And all of us take it in the neck when we deal with the public. I’ve lost track of the jobs and opportunities I’ve lost because I’m a “denier.”

Contrarily, the government hands out BILLIONS—that’s billions-with-a-B—to those who support the government’s goals. Environmental groups rake it in from the government and—drum roll—from oil companies, who are more than generous with their moola in that direction. True, some coal companies have spent a comparative pittance defending themselves against baseless and ridiculous charges. This defense is taken by the weak-minded as proof that these companies are covering up deep global-warming secrets, in much the same way the deluded take denials by the Air Force that they have UFOs on ice as proof the Air Force is lying.

Take the appalling, immoral Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who was behind the move by the twit Jagadish Shukla to have the government RICO prosecute those who dare to speak against prophecies of doom. This offensive creep Shukla pays himself and his wife half a million dollars a year with government money to do very little except write letters asking for his enemies be prosecuted. Nineteen other big name climate scientists signed the farcical letter demanding their critics be tossed in the hoosegow.

If that’s not a special interest, I don’t know what is. This is only one of hundreds of examples.

Now for the science. The Pope can be forgiven for not understanding American power politics, for not fathoming how slimy leaders would lie, lie, lie, and lie some more in an effort to have their way with the world. But he ought to understand reality has not conformed to the thousands of predictions of apocalypse that have been made these past twenty, thirty years.

Global warming models stink. They are lousy. They cannot make skillful forecasts. They haven’t been able to match reality in a very long time, for some twenty years. It is well past the time to conclude that the theories on which the rely are broken. It used to be a fundamental scientific principle—it was part of the famed scientific method!—that when a theory didn’t work, it was tossed out. Now the opposite is true: if reality doesn’t match the theory, it’s reality that’s dumped. Or “readjusted”, but only ever in the direction of the theory.

I mean, really. Who is fooled by this? I’ll tell you who isn’t. Our dear leaders in Washington, who damn well know the truth. They know that storms have not been increasing, that non-existent global warming has not caused terrorism, and that none of the doom we have been promised has happened. But they don’t care. They only care that they that can save us. What was it Mr Obama said upon election? We are are the ones we have been waiting for. Hello, hubris.

Francis has made ecological concerns a hallmark of his nearly 3-year-old papacy, issuing a landmark encyclical earlier this year that paired the need to care for the environment with the need to care for humanity’s most vulnerable.

Francis argues the two are interconnected since the poor often suffer the most from the effects of global warming, and are largely excluded from today’s fossil-fuel based global economy that is heating up the planet.

Again, the opposite is true. Take cheap, reliable, efficient fossil fuel away from up-and-coming economies and you doom them to real poverty. Further, everybody knows this. There has been no global warming. Our best records, the satellites, show this.

The Pope declared it would by “‘sad, and I dare say even catastrophic,’ were particular interests to prevail over the common good at the upcoming climate conference in Paris.”

It would be sadder if we signed over to politicians even more control than they already have to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. That would really hurt The Poor™.

So why does the Pope believe all these demonstrably false things? Bad advice, in part. He cocks his ear towards fringe scientists who do not hold the best interests of the Church in mind, but who believe the earth is alive and can get sick (yes). Plus, the fellow who runs the Vatican’s science academies can’t abide being told he’s wrong. He also desires to please the world.

There’s another part, though. Any leader may receive faulty intelligence, but the actions taken on that intelligence are the leader’s responsibility. That’s the price paid to be in charge. The Pope ought to realize the full scope of what he is asking for. That starts by educating himself at least on the science.

Holy father, God bless you. I’m available for consultation any time.

Stream: There’s Big Money in Global Warming Alarmism

The government is ready to hand out more global warming grants.
The government is ready to hand out more global warming grants.

Cop21 is upon us. Dread it. The Pope yesterday spoke of the corrupting influence of “special interest” groups. Amen to that. Although these groups aren’t who the Pope thinks they are. More on that tomorrow.

Today: go to The Stream to see There’s Big Money in Global Warming Alarmism

A sociologist with no training in the physical sciences is puzzled why most Americans think the world is not doomed by global warming. So flummoxed is Yale’s Justin Farrell that he decided to study the question in the most scientific way possible. And he managed to publish his results, “Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change,” in the once prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.

What do you think his conclusions were? Perhaps that thirty years of failed temperature predictions boosted Americans’ skepticism? Or that the obvious eagerness of politicians to leverage exaggerated fears have left many skittish? Or maybe it’s the dearth of severe storms, despite the many promises that floods and droughts would drown and parch us all?

No, none of that. Farrell discovered that private groups spent their own money to say that things were not as bad as alarmists claimed. He told The Washington Post that these “contrarian efforts have been so effective for the fact that they have made it difficult for ordinary Americans to even know who to trust.” Indeed, I, myself a climate scientist, no longer trust anything non-scientists like Farrell tell me about global warming (which he incorrectly calls “climate change”).

Farrell is right about one thing: Global warming alarmism is big business. On one side you have Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, Environmental Defense Fund, The Climate Project and dozens upon dozens of other non-governmental organizations who solicit hundreds of millions from private donors and from government, and who in turn award lucrative grants to further their agenda…

Go there to read the rest.

I have a nice little list of the groups. Tomorrow we talk about the Holy Father’s other errors. Yes, errors.

Best Equivocation Joke: Open Thread

lu

It being a slow traffic week and me being on the road and swamped—COP21 is coming up next week, working on a new book, news of the old one is coming soon, et cetera, et cetera—I didn’t have time to say anything of interest today.

What better time for a joke challenge? As I often say, the best jokes are built on equivocation. My all-time favorite: Two cannibals are eating a clown and one says to the other, “Does this taste funny to you?”

And that reminds me of one told to me by Ianto Watt, author of The Barbarian Bible:The True History of Man Since the Fall of Troy. Did you hear about the cannibal who ate his brother? He threw up his arms in despair.

Since much of the world is at war—and hey, even we might be—it’s time to be a little less serious. What are your favorite jokes? But only those based on equivocation, mistaking one word or sound for another.

For example, this one doesn’t count: One snowman said to another, “That’s funny. I smell carrots, too.”

But this one does: Why did Mozart kill all his chickens? Because when he asked them who the best composer was, they’d all say “Bach bach bach!”

Get cracking! (And don’t forget my mother reads this blog.)