The ignorant dominionists believe that their god gave man the planet to do with as man pleases. They believe that when mankind has utterly destroyed the environment their god will come again and they'll all be raptured up to heaven.

I reject the role of religious faith in any solution. Religious faith is good for nothing but deceiving one's self.

But many do, and the opinion article suggests a way of appealing to theists.

No one "needs' mythology and fairy tales after childhood. Adults know better.

but you ARE telling all theists that they are not adults.

Why does your opinion make those who differ with you immature and childlike?

Its that they believe in a invisible sky daddy. There is actual evidence for Santa Claus as he was a character built off Saint Nicolas who we know existed. If an adult said he believed in Santa Claus we would think they are immature and childlike. But invisible sky daddy? Somehow that is ok. Preposterous.

ideology. I view that as irrational and have a hard time understanding that mindset. Also they go out of the way to say they are not racist and yet have been so for generations. Racism like Religion is taught and I think it is awfully hard to change that especially after decades of living in that alternate world. Like segregation they definitely live in their own "holy" bubble and seldom if ever associate with people other than those who think like themselves.

to justify obstruction.

In the rare instances where religion actually manages to help save the planet:

Thanks, religion. We couldn’t have done it without you.

In the much more frequent case where religion is counterproductive to that effort:

Human nature. Religion has nothing to do with it.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

except for those who subscribe to a black and white view of humanity. Many of us can see the nuance that some miss.

...faith, is the providence of deniers.

Ethics. Not faith.

faith is for the lazy, it gets you thoughts, prayers, and no action.

faith is the core of the problem.

Unrestrained greed, and science in service to that greed, are what got us into this situation.

Faith did not poison the planet. Greed did it.

Faith did not invent nuclear weapons. Scientists did.

...'faith', is the problem.

your logic would be sufficient.

anyone who disagrees with you is just a "black and white thinker"?

Let's run that one up the flag pole.

Scientists invented nuclear weapons. Is science evil?

Scientists weaponized anthrax. Is science evil?

So is science evil, or are scientists evil?

And that type of simplistic reasoning speaks to me of an agenda, or a failure of logic.

scientific beliefs. Because there are no scientific beliefs.

Your analogy just doesn't work.

And many of these things are invented to be used as weapons. Are these scientists evil?

Or, follow your pattern.

Last edited Wed Oct 2, 2019, 01:13 PM - Edit history (1)

Science isn't ethics.

There. There's the answer. Again. For the umpteenth time. Every time this comes up, you trot out the nuclear bomb like it's some poignant point that's never before been raised in religious discourse. And every time, someone has to remind you that science isn't ethics. And again, you have seemingly forgotten. Or aren't listening. Or are just straight up lying. Who the fuck knows at this point. What's clear is it really ain't worth talking about anything with you.

...you are having a conversation with yourself.

Agreed, you have convinced yourself.

...g. You do you.

Science inspired humans to the moon, it was not faith that got us there...

'faith', with a capital f, was the inspiration for men to fly planes into buildings.

The first thing Neil Armstrong did when we landed on the moon, was collect the "contingency sample". A scientific sample to be studied. It is emblematic of why we went.

Scientists and engineers don't build planes for the purpose of flying them into buildings, that was all faith. 'faith' will forever OWN that.


faith IS the problem.

Have you ever read "Prisoner's Dilemma: John von Neumann, Game Theory, and the Puzzle of the Bomb"

Very interesting book on early game theory etc. Apparently a lot of the "serious" scientists concluded the US need to start a nuclear war to "save" the US from invasion by the soviets. Seems like they thought game theory scientifically proved that was the "best" option.

And my point is not that science is evil, or that knowledge is evil, but that it can be used to do evil. And, as you pointed out, even intelligent people can convince themselves that what they do is for the best purposes and with the best of intentions.

There ARE teachings in religions that say you should.

You might choose to disregard those passages in your holy book, but they're still there, and taken seriously by millions.

There were also studies that were done on people with portions of their brain that were damaged (I forget exactly what part) .
They were the portions that were the "emotional" responses - that would have theoretically turned them into a Mr Spock type of "logical only" person.

They found out that it's close to impossible to function that way. Too many decisions to be made with the "logical" part of the brain - which is massively slower than the more primitive response system. Point is, we make a LOT of decisions w/o even thinking (pun intended) and that we may "think" we are being emotionless / logical when we are nothing of the sort.

"Science" while a noble thing to aspire to - is not something that is automatic in a persons operating mode. Science can and has been used and corrupted for many things by "humans".

allowing refugees from 2nd/3rd world countries ... to migrate to 1st world countries, including the USA.

Why? Because as soon as people move to the US from underdeveloped countries, they will immediately begin consuming more resources, in particular fossil fuel resources ... relative to what they would consume in their native countries.

Allowing in a lot of refugees to the USA from the underdeveloped world ... will absolutely contribute to the climate crisis. This is absolutely irrefutable fact in the current state of world affairs.

I merely point this out because perfectly interpreted 'science' ... can lead to very logical conclusions ... that, if implemented ... would lead to the suffering (sometimes great) of others.

11th Commandment!

Choir!

The best part is no matter how ridiculous the schtick is, it’s going to get worn out.

Numerous personal messages, asking him to continue doing what he is doing, and praising his efforts in this group!

We don't need religious faith to fix anything. People are welcome to have their own faith if they feel the need, but it's not a requirement. That would be bigotry against non-believers you are promoting, g.

Here it is again:

"religious vision is insufficient without solid science"

But yet "religious vision" is still a requirement. So much for non-believers. Your message is exclusionary and divisive.

So your objection, while noted, is off point.

Or are you just pulling that out of your ass to avoid the exclusionary and prejudiced message?

And your need to deflect from the actual piece.

You are now admitting it doesn't.

Thank you.

or the excerpt.

But I understand this need to promote the narrative.

Point to where in the article it says what you claimed.

Put up or shut up, guillaumeb.

The controversy of intolerant theists. Straw is never a good material to use as a foundation.

And since you created this issue, point out exactly where the author says anything like what you claim to be the author's intent.

You have not substantiated this claim in the slightest.

Realizing that you can't, you are now, in typical fashion, trying desperately to turn it into an attack on me.

You lose again. Must be humiliating.

Your attempts at diversion are noted.

It's in post #41.

Wipe that egg off your face and just admit you have no basis for the claim. I'll forgive you and let it go.

Or continue to attack and smear me, and I'll continue to humiliate you. Your call.

...a mia culpa given the (public) track record?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=319006

And I am rarely disappointed in that expectation.

Such as making a claim, as you did in post 41, and then going all DARVO instead of backing it up?

That's not dialogue, g. Show people the behavior you want them to emulate.

I can only draw attention to the behavior as a warning to others that he is not interested in actual discussion.

Absolutely nothing should be left out in the race to save human habitation on this planet.

Religion is based on the assumption that the universe adheres to animistic philosophy.
Science is based on the assumption that the universe adheres to materialistic philosophy.

The universe can only be one or the other: animistic or materialistic. Thinking or unthinking.

You felt this was a message worth sharing.

I am not sure how more 'faith' will get us out of this mess.

...a different result?

Hmmm...it's on the tip of my tongue...

And don't you possibly see the point that wording like that kind of eliminates atheists from being able to part of the solution? Which is kind of a shitty exclusion thing?

The author of this opinion piece is actually reminding theists that science is also needed, especially when dealing with climate catastrophe.

And nowhere does the author exclude atheists, but he has no reason to remind atheists of the limitations of faith when dealing with a scientific issue.

Sorry, there is no exclusion here.

Makes no qualifications about what their beliefs are.

Your desperate spin is showing. You've cited yet another religious bigot, and have chosen to double- and triple down defending them instead of doing the right thing.

The more outspoken religious leaders out who publicly point out that contributing to the climate crisis is a literal evil, the better off we are ... it's an excellent message for the religious followers of this world to hear.

And I'm really not seeing the 'desperate spin' you're referring to (though I've definitely seen the poster do some spinning over the years), nor do I see the 'religious bigotry' of the author.

"But the climate crisis will require not only an ethical vision but a religious one."

He is stating that religion is a requirement to solve the climate crisis. You are free to disagree, but the bigotry is quite clear to me.

Is NOT ... non-religious people are somehow unqualified to help/do great things towards a solution, but rather, since like 80% of the population ARE religious ... it's unlikely we agnostics/atheists would be capable of 'doing it ourselves' ... convincing the BILLIONS of religious people that they have a 'godly duty' to work toward a solution could in fact be the single most important bit of 'convincing' that could possibly happen ... in the grand scheme of things.

I'd say the help (at minimum) of religious people IS 'required' based on the current makeup of the world's population.

has always been SOOOOO easy.

What's wrong with solving the problem without religion? Then EVERYONE can participate. Isn't that a good thing?

The article doesn't say "religious people" are required. It says "faith" is required.

One of the key words here is REQUIRE.

So that kind of excludes atheists, 'cause, you know, religion.

Makes you feel all sorts of welcome, doesn't it?

"To save the planet, we need faith, ethics, science, economics, and penises."

I'm only speaking to those people with penises, so it's not discriminatory, divisive, or exclusionary. At all. SO STOP SAYING THAT.

So there is that unavoidable fact.

Relevance.

What makes that obvious?

Does the author say they are addressing theists only? If so, where? Please quote the relevant passage.

So if black people aren't around, I can be racist? "Hey, I'm obviously speaking to whites."
So if women aren't around, I can call them bitches? "Hey, I'm obviously speaking to men."

This article is 1. exclusionary, and 2. wrong (e.g. it IN NO WAY indicates why faith is actually needed beyond rah rah bullshit—we can solve the climate crisis without faith).

You created the exclusion by assuming intent.

And the excerpt I bolded shows the exact opposite of what you claim is the author's point.

And this exchange shows why actual dialogue often fails here. The author counsels theists that faith is not enough, that science is needed, but you claim the exact opposite.

An interesting display of textual analysis.

And I still have no answer as to why faith is needed to solve the climate crisis.

And, I know we've been down this road before, but perhaps when someone points out your privilege, you shouldn't just shit on them and tell them how wrong they are but actually listen, learn, and adjust the way you interact with others in order to avoid micro/macro aggressions.

Or just continue doing the same shit and not give a fuck about what others thing. Whatever works for you, I guess. But don't be surprised when others point out your shit when you don't change.

So how exactly did you refute my actual response to you? You avoided what I wrote.

And allusions to privilege and micro-aggression are meaningless in this context. There is no controversy, no exclusion.

But they might disagree.

Perhaps you missed it.

You may have missed the sarcasm in mine.

And I might again in the future.

Of course there are religious scientists. Some of them are reputable and do good and honest work. No one has ever claimed otherwise.

However, that doesn't make Bernardo de La Paz's statement untrue. You have, in the past, held forth about "non-overlapping magisteria" which seems to be another way to say "compartmentalization". If you can rationalize holding conflicting beliefs, there's no reason to think that religious scientists can't do the same.

And we all compartmentalize. It is part of how we approach life.

Some here insist, without evidence, that there is no proof that a Creator exists, and proceed from that unprovable statement to insist that there is no Creator. And they rationalize this as logical thinking.

If you can’t produce proof that something does not exist, you have made an unprovable assertion.

Which is not to say anyone who isn’t delusional would understand that whackadoodle nonsense.

And, to name a few more:

"I like to describe [God] as the “world soul” — which was my mother’s phrase — so that we are little bits of the world soul. And so it may well be that we are part of the world’s growth. That’s the kind of world I would like to live in, and as a working hypothesis it seems to me quite reasonable. In detail the world shows no evidence of any sort of conscious design. If there is to be a conscious design, it probably has to be ours."

Another interview with a slightly different wording of basically the same response to the same question, for clarity. Emphasis mine.

Also, his specialty as a scientist has zip to do with the climate/weather. He worked alongside the likes of Oppenheimer, on high-energy physics like atomic weapons. His opinion is worth very little on Climate. If you want to level a city, or maybe talk policy about why you shouldn't level a city, he's your guy. (I recommend 'Weapons and Hope')

But yes, you've found the end of the pareto chart, for that 7% or less of the Academy of Sciences whose population are some degree of theist.

These people are not holding back general public understanding of, political action upon, or scientific understanding of climate change, and the degree to which humans are responsible.

But the question, or challenge, was to name one scientist who is/was a theist. So I exceeded that.

As to climate change, or rather, human caused/accelerated climate change, the science is clear.