New Religion?

[Mr Sleet]

A while ago I posted two links in the sceptics links thread, asking if anyone could define or explain the difference between them. One link was for an Evangelist movement, the other for Al Gore and how to sign up to his campaign. Many times on these threads, the accusation of Climate Change as being almost a new religion has been raised, usually to much disdain and heated denouncements. Today I found this; for me, a worrying developement. Have a read, look at the signatures at the bottom. Religion has no place in science; if people, whatever their career, have a religious belief, so be it, that's their right. However, when their beliefs become entangled with their career to this extent then questions need to be asked.

p.s don't shoot the messenger folks.

http://chge.med.harvard.edu/media/releases...l_to_action.pdf

I don't see what the problem is Jethro, many scientists are practising Christians, Jews or Muslims. All they are saying is don't cock up the world which God created.

Anyway there is no conflict between science and religion. Science is the study of God's creation and laws.

[Essan]

Surely it'd be of much more concern if religious groups started telling their members that all climate and environmental change is God's will and therefore not to do anything to prevent?

And anyway, why does believing in Creationism mean you can't also believe that chopping down most of the world's rainforests is a bad thing? :o

[SnowBear]

Surely it'd be of much more concern if religious groups started telling their members that all climate and environmental change is God's will and therefore not to do anything to prevent?

Now that would very much worry me......"do not change your (wasteful, selfish etc) ways, it is God's will that we live as we do, if God will's that we must suffer drought's, storms (add any other applicable extreme weather here), then so be it".

Edited August 30, 2007 by SnowBear

[Roo]

Science is the study of God's creation and laws.

Not true...

Science is a means of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, and the knowledge body this accumulates. There is no element of it that acknowledges that a God did it.

[Gray-Wolf]

Not true...

Science is a means of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, and the knowledge body this accumulates. There is no element of it that acknowledges that a God did it.

Unless you believe in a 'God' of course and maybe this is what Mr S. was referring to.

I do much prefer this kind of religious activity to other 'fundamentalist activities' (and at least they are not calling it an 'end time' and awaiting some kind of rapture to take them all away from it all!!!).Mainstream religious acceptance of mans role in our planets many challenges can only be applauded (IMHO).

[jethro]

So, the overall opinion is it is ok for science and religion to hold hands because we all agree with their message, save the planet/creation. In my opinion that's incredibly worrying; look at history folks. Science and religion should be two separate entities, both can give the same opinion, hold the same views without the need to join forces and certainly without using one to reinforce the other. If the AGW theory was heard as loud and clear in the USA as it is here, this coalition would never have occured, regardless of each individual scientists beliefs. It is a deliberate manipulation in order to further a cause and I say again, those scientists involved should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

I'm off on hols now, have fun.

[Gray-Wolf]

So, the overall opinion is it is ok for science and religion to hold hands because we all agree with their message, save the planet/creation. In my opinion that's incredibly worrying; look at history folks. Science and religion should be two separate entities, both can give the same opinion, hold the same views without the need to join forces and certainly without using one to reinforce the other.

I thought the expansion of the Moors into Europe/N.Africa/Southern Spain brought with it a lot of science and high art along with the Muslim faith? I though that the Warriors from that empire were not just highly religious but also well schooled in both the arts and science?

Religion and science separate? maybe bad religion and bad science but otherwise why should they be incompatible?

I do not feel my beliefs (which I could only class as 'broadly Pagan' in nature) in any way compromise my quest for knowledge/scientific truths. Why should it?

Regards,

Ian.

Edited September 1, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Science owes not to aethism but to Christianity. The Enlightenment would not have been possible but for the Biblical concept of an ordered world (creation) that was comprehensible to absolute human understanding. As opposed to relativist, anarchic world full of subjectivism that is impossible to understand.

I often laugh at the expression on the faces of the most superior of the atheists after I point out to them all the scientists of the Enlighenment, Newton, Darwin. Galileo to Descartes, were Christian, believed in God or otherwise influenced by Christianity at some time. To be specific, enlightenment scientists were often deists. This does not mean aetheism.

Islam is antithetical to science, that is one reason why the Islamic civilisation ran out of steam. Initially the Muslims conquered territories that were rich in cultural history and understanding - India (where zero came from), Babylon, Persia, Egypt, Greece... all these places contained vast libraries which Muslim scholars read and what they did not destroy outright, they destroyed a lot, they translated and passed on.

Despite the Muslim's massive head-start it was left to Christian Europeans initially reading text second hand to actually create something with the knowledge of the Greeks and the older civilisations. Islam did not allow the free thinking to enable the Muslim scholars to do very much.

Edited September 1, 2007 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[The PIT]

Science owes not to aethism but to Christianity. The Enlightenment would not have been possible but for the Biblical concept of an ordered world (creation) that was comprehensible to absolute human understanding. As opposed to relativist, anarchic world full of subjectivism that is impossible to understand.

I often laugh at the expression on the faces of the most superior of the atheists after I point out to them all the scientists of the Enlighenment, Newton, Darwin. Galileo to Descartes, were Christian, believed in God or otherwise influenced by Christianity at some time. To be specific, enlightenment scientists were often deists. This does not mean aetheism.

Islam is antithetical to science, that is one reason why the Islamic civilisation ran out of steam. Initially the Muslims conquered territories that were rich in cultural history and understanding - India (where zero came from), Babylon, Persia, Egypt, Greece... all these places contained vast libraries which Muslim scholars read and what they did not destroy outright, they destroyed a lot, they translated and passed on.

Despite the Muslim's massive head-start it was left to Christian Europeans initially reading text second hand to actually create something with the knowledge of the Greeks and the older civilisations. Islam did not allow the free thinking to enable the Muslim scholars to do very much.

Not very pc if I may so. That'll upset one or two people anyway. What you said is probably true though.

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

To be perfectly honest I DON'T CARE what the reason is why people change their behaviour as long as it is more respectful of our environment, (and in fact our fellow man of course !). Most of the statements within the originally quoted paper are spot on, and I really don't see why it matters who wrote it or why, the simple fact is it's CORRECT. If a large proportion of people start to act in a more (for want of a better phrase) 'environmentally friendly' manner because their priest/vicar/rabbi/imam/maharishi/yogi/wizard tells them to, then, frankly, good. Without wanting to sound arrogant the vast majority of people need to be told what to do, and I really don't care who tells them as long as they listen !!!

[PersianPaladin]

At the end of the day; there is 'religion' and there is reality. Religion is just another means of articulating reality so that people can maintain a connection with the natural law and not get carried away by their selfish egos that end up possessing the earth, using it as a means of selfish consumption and control, etc. We all have to return to something along the lines of a symbiosis and harmony with the land around us. It is possible, I believe....but we just need to stop being so greedy, dogmatic and downright factionalist in our thinking. There is truth in every scripture and every argument....the truth is the truth; no matter what mouth it happens to come out of. Its just up to those who have persuasive influence to discriminate and discern where the falsehood, spin, hype, dogma, ego, etc lies in the rhetoric and help us back to a more balanced state with the carrying capacity of this limited earth.

[dogs32]

I have a faith always have...its helped me through bad times in my life ..I beleive there is something out there...not ET

[Turnedoutniceagain]

I have a faith always have...its helped me through bad times in my life ..I beleive there is something out there...not ET

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?showtopic=40173

Easy Tiger.

Is this banned or not ?? Come on Mods, you can't Cut & Paste, we can either let fly or we can't :o

[pottyprof]

Yep. I think enough is enough.

I don't like the way this is heading.