Richard Dawkins claims “psycho” cyclist smashed up his Tesla – while he was in it

iandusud wrote:

Please read what I said in context :-). It wasn't disingenuous. I was talking about agnosticism vs atheism. 

With respect, it is somewhat disingenuous to state that Einstein didn't subscribe to atheism without mentioning that he was equally dubious about theism.

Hello again Ian - I'll say now that I'm immensely enjoying this conversation

iandusud wrote:

Hi Captain,

I'll try and repsond to some of your points. You are assuming that the ToE cannot  have room for God, but I'm not suggesting that God has no role in evolution.

Not really. I'm just not assuming that gods would be involved. To do so would require a verifiable explanations of gods. This just isn't available, and in any case evolution needs no such addition

iandusud wrote:

This is position that most Christians hold and it in no way dismisses the ToE. However not everyone, including scientists, understand the ToE in the same way. For example I think most people would consider humans to be the most evolved species

That would spring from a misunderstanding of ToE. To say more would require it to be measured - how would that be quantified? Time? we have been evolving for the same length of time as earthworms, and have a common ancestor. 

What most people mean is that humans are more complex intellectually at least to most (we cannot say all) other species at least, however we are physically inferior to many, our eyes arent as good as even some spiders, our backs are really poorly "designed", we don't live as long as others. So we really have to be careful and avoid viewing ourselves as some kind of pinnacle.

iandusud wrote:

but the ToE tells us that species evolve by surival of the fittest and we see this demonstrated with other animals where the weak and sick are shunned in order for the species to evolve to be stronger and fitter.

That would also be a misunderstanding. "Survival of the fittest" doesn't refer to the strongest/fastest - how would that apply to bacteria say? It means survival of those best fit to their environment. That way weak and slow tortoises are still with us. 

The picking off weaker animals though is relevant in very specific environments. the cheatah v the antelope would be a good case, and it results in a highly costly arms race, for no discernable benefit to either species. This is the horror and brutality of evolution, which may be explained by the pitiless laws of statistical probability.

iandusud wrote:

However humans care for the weak and disabled which would appear to be incompatible with the survival of the fittest model.

Yes that would be incompatible, if that model were reflective of ToE.  The caring for the sick and disabled is by no means limited to humans. Neither is the murder of sick and disabled exclusively non-human, again as we know very well.

Some mammals (and species from other classes) have evolved to live in groups. Group relationships, friendships and love are evolutionary explained behaviours (the feelings are very real, as we know, and experienced by other non-human sentient beings). Close-knit groups cooperate, and so have an advantage in terms of survival. Therefore individuals that are prone to cooperate are more likely to pass on their genes.

Individuals who are disabled still are useful to the group - imagine a lioness with a dickie hip. She can't help in the hunt, but can keep an eye on the cubs whilst the others are. This may constitute an evolutionary payback for love and compassion

So no, whereas evolution is certainly brutal, the outcomes might not be

iandusud wrote:

I certainly don't claim to speak for all Christians and as you say there are those who flatly deny the ToE, but they are a small minority. The problem is, as with the anti-cycling mob, is that they tend to be the ones who shout the loudest and are the most confrontational. 

And the most dangerous indeed

iandusud wrote:

You make a lot references to religion and I'm not speaking for my part about anything other than christianity. 

For me there is little difference between them. The only reason that I would be more able to hold more of a conversation about Christianity is that it is the most familiar to me.

iandusud wrote:

You ask me how I know that Gen 1 is allergorical. Anyone (not just biblical scholars) who studies ANE history will confirm this. There are different styles of OT biblical narative, allergory, historical, appocalyptic... I can assure that this isn't disputed by scholars (although it may well be by less scholarly fundamentalist christians). It is also worth noting that the Gen 1 account describes an evolutionary process. 

That would be a revisionist review of teh contents of teh good book. For much of history it has been regarded as the word of god.

Different styles of writing will clearly become apparent - there were different writers after all over hundreds or even thousands of years, translations, drift, etc 

I would find it extraordinarily difficult to believe that we could say anything specific about a writer's intentions. Without contemporary evidence, it would be opinion, heavily flavoured by what we want to believe.

That is not to say that modern interpretation isn't as you say - of course it is. But even then there is far from universal agreement as to what means what - hence the staggering number of denominations, and even hostility between those denominations.

iandusud wrote:

I'm not sure why you mock biblical narative, which has been substanciated by scientific study, as fun religious stories. You may dismiss them as such but please be aware that ancient writings of all sorts are important historical records that give insight into ancient cultures that have shaped our present ones. They are taken very seriously and studied by historians and athroplogists among others.

I do not mock stories, far from it. They are of huge cultural importance, and are massively important to anthropologists as part of the study of who we are. However they remain stories. Historical documents yes, historical records not so much.

iandusud wrote:

I totally understand what scientific theory is and it therefore unscientific to present it as indisputable fact. I think in this respect RD needs to show a bit more humility. 

I'm not sure that you do. The theory explains the facts. Evolution is the fact, ToE explains it. 

The simple thing to get RD to swallow his words would be to falsify ToE and publish findings. I'm sure he, and I for that matter, would be fascinated to see the evidence of the new Theory of Biodiversity.

In the meantime, humility is best served by accepting that, at the present time, ToE is the best explanation we have for BD, and happens to be a fascinating and very elegant one.

iandusud wrote:

I'm not suggesting that ToE doesn't stand up to peer review, it's RD's characatures of people of faith that don't. 

Neither does caricatures of atheists or RD. I think we can leave it at that

iandusud wrote:

I'm sorry that you've had bad experiences of "religious" who don't agree with you. However, to use the above analogy, I'm sure you've had bad experiences with car drivers who don't agree with you. Sadly there are biggoted people in all walks of life but please don't tar us all with the same brush.

I don't - I'm thoroughly enjoying this conversation, and some of my best friends.....

iandusud wrote:

Science and faith are not at all imcompatable. In fact I would go so far as to say that science is based upon faith.

No, it's based on evidence

iandusud wrote:

For example when you sit down on your chair to eat your supper you don't for one moment fear that it will collapse under you.

No, cos I checked and tightened the bolts. However when sitting on a new chair I might well check before sitting down

iandusud wrote:

This is faith in the chair's capacity to support your weight based upon experience. Christian faith is based upon experience as is science

I'm sorry but that isn't teh case. Most people are Christian due to family or friends. the fact that the predominant religion in the West is Christianity, or Islam in the ME, is not a coincidence

iandusud wrote:

. A scientist will theorise and experiment. If the results of his experiement lead him to believe that he is correct and he continues to see the same positive results he will have faith in his theory.

Again, no. A scientist will start with a hunch, then hypothesise. Will then attempt to falsify. It only becomes a theory when it is widely accepted after peer review. It isn't a trivial process, is not based on faith - it requires evidence.

iandusud wrote:

I can assure that the christian experience is no different (you might like to put it to the test )

More than happy to. But first you must produce your hypothesis for scientific peer review. To do that you would have to do all kinds of things like quantify gods, make verifiable predictions that aren't explained by existing theories (or at least explain them better). I think there is a reason that hasn't been done so far.

Of course, I'm being tongue in cheek, but science deals with facts and explaining them objectively, and can change when new evidence comes to light. All religion can do is retreat.

iandusud wrote:

Many in the scientific community find atheism irrational from a scientific point of view. This was certainly true of Einstein. Agnosticism is a much more rational point of view for scientist, who by nature should have an open mind.

No doubt, but possibly from a misunderstanding (and fear, prejudice or distaste) of atheism. For me it is simply the null hypothesis.

As for the rationality of agnosticism, would that not suggest it is more logical than religion?

In reality agnosticism is not exclusive to either. I might be considered agnostic too. Most atheists are, although there are fewer believers who take that philosophical stand point, most opting for a gnostic view I understand.

Whether Einstein was a believer is moot - I can quote-mine for "evidence", and so can you. However I believe it to be irrelevant. It is notable that there is nowhere in space-time that gods can hide, they aren't even mentioned if memory serves.

A stocking filler recommendation if interested in these things - Pascal Boyer's boldly titled "Religion Explained". A trawl though history, philosopy, psychology, anthropology and the "cognitive sciences". It looks at where some features of humans' "mental architecture" on several levels may come from and then relates this to "beliefs" both small and larger. Has some interesting recent-ish (around 2000) studies on people's religious behaviors and what they actually seem to believe.

If nothing else it's good for a reminder that "religion" or "belief" is actually composed of many smaller parts, and across the world is mostly about things other than the "major faiths". The anthropology / psychology tales are fascinating as they usually are and there is some very funny writing.

Of course some passages are not crystal clear - that's probably a given in this neck of the woods. And the last part of the book looking at how we come to have "religions" in the bigger sense (e.g. regional / national / international "faiths") is by its nature a more difficult / speculative tale.

chrisonatrike wrote:

A stocking filler recommendation if interested in these things - Pascal Boyer's boldly titled "Religion Explained". A trawl though history, philosopy, psychology, anthropology and the "cognitive sciences". It looks at where some features of humans' "mental architecture" on several levels may come from and then relates this to "beliefs" both small and larger. Has some interesting recent-ish (around 2000) studies on people's religious behaviors and what they actually seem to believe.

If nothing else it's good for a reminder that "religion" or "belief" is actually composed of many smaller parts, and across the world is mostly about things other than the "major faiths". The anthropology / psychology tales are fascinating as they usually are and there is some very funny writing.

Of course some passages are not crystal clear - that's probably a given in this neck of the woods. And the last part of the book looking at how we come to have "religions" in the bigger sense (e.g. regional / national / international "faiths") is by its nature a more difficult / speculative tale.

Thanks, added to the list

Every species that exists on this planet is as evolved as any other.  There are very few evolutionary biologists who would ever consider that humans are more evolved than anything else.

Your simplistic concept of evolution that it is "survival of the fittest" and that an entire branch of biology can be condensed into a three word phrase would be the same as me squeezing religion's just so stories as "god did it".

Dawkins has postulated that we are all atheists, or do you still believe in the Norse gods?

ktache wrote:

Dawkins has postulated that we are all atheists, or do you still believe in the Norse gods?

I don't believe in Norse gods (or not at least in the sense that the Norse would have) but how does that make me an atheist if I do believe in a creator god or any other god for that matter?

But you do believe in the specific abrahamic god, and reject all others?

It's that rejection that makes you athiest to those equally perfectly legitimate faiths.

I just don't believe in one more god than you. So you are just slightly more athiest than me.

And that would be a western christianity, rather than an Eastern orthodox or the form that originated in the middle East and actually stayed there?

And of course which of the western christian versions or are they all correct?

ktache wrote:

But you do believe in the specific abrahamic god, and reject all others?

It's that rejection that makes you athiest to those equally perfectly legitimate faiths.

I just don't believe in one more god than you. So you are just slightly more athiest than me.

And that would be a western christianity, rather than an Eastern orthodox or the form that originated in the middle East and actually stayed there?

And of course which of the western christian versions or are they all correct?

 

The OED definition of atheism is "The theory or belief that God does not exist". In which case I'm not an atheist. 

Merriam-Webster defines it as "a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods", so that doesn't apply to me either. 

When you talk about different western versions of christianity I presume that you are refering to different demoninations. You also suggest that my christianity is western rather than eastern. You make huge assumptions here. Different denominations reflect all sorts of cultural and historical influences, as do societies across the globe. There's nothing unusual about that. Also christianity has evolved and been greatly influenced by all sorts of things, many of which have been to its detriment. I think particularly of Constantine and begining of a state church. Eastern theology is generally much closer to the NT church than a lot of western theology which has been greatly influenced by Greek thinking trying to interpret an eastern mindset. This is why we end up with people interpreting Gen 1 literally when anyone with an eastern mindset would see it for what it is. 

Christians, and more importantly from the point of view of our discussion, theologians like scientists don't agree on all things and do generally agree on many but are searching to understand their subject.

But by the OED definition you are an atheist when it comes  to Thor?

ktache wrote:

But by the OED definition you are an atheist when it comes  to Thor?

Ah yes. The problem of competing options. I've never been sure which god / jinn / deva / psychopomp is responsible for ensuring that people get the right near-death experience visions. But it does seem to be that somehow Christians don't tend to visualise Yama, and Sikhs don't see apsaras. So that proves there must be one.

One of my fave jokes (Marcus Brigstocke I think but can't find a video / link) concerned someone dying and then appearing in some kind of limbo. He sees Jesus smiling at him and starts to walk towards him - but then notices there are other figures there - he recognises Muhammed, there are others which could be the Buddha etc. Turning back in confusion, he sees Jesus still smiling and beckoning him on. As he gets closer Jesus holds up a small sign saying "bluff" and points at Muhammed.

ktache wrote:

Dawkins has postulated that we are all atheists, or do you still believe in the Norse gods?

I don't agree with that as atheism is the absence of belief (in gods) so believing in at least one, makes you a theist.

hawkinspeter][quote=ktache wrote:

Dawkins has postulated that we are all atheists.

This is an example of the sort of statement that R D comes out with that is a discredit to good scientists.

iandusud wrote:

ktache wrote:

Dawkins has postulated that we are all atheists.

This is an example of the sort of statement that R D comes out with that is a discredit to good scientists.

Dawkins' opinions only reflect on himself and it'd be a mistake to assume that a majority of scientists would agree (and there's plenty of top flight scientists that are religious). It's like blaming all cyclists for RLJs.

The scientific method is rooted in the fallibility of scientists, so just because someone is an expert, it doesn't mean that they're always right about everything.

In regards to my testing all chairs, I've weighed all the probabilities based on years of extensive chair sitting and have come to the conclusion that ordinary chairs very rarely collapse. Of course, If I saw a bizarre, unwieldy looking chair, I'd probably be more wary.

hawkinspeter wrote:

iandusud wrote:

ktache wrote:

Dawkins has postulated that we are all atheists.

This is an example of the sort of statement that R D comes out with that is a discredit to good scientists.

Dawkins' opinions only reflect on himself and it'd be a mistake to assume that a majority of scientists would agree. 

That's the point I was making. The problem is that people do assume that because a prominent scientist says something is represents scientists. In the same way I get just as annoyed with christians who come out with ridiculous statements such as the world being created in 6 days.

[/quote] In regards to my testing all chairs, I've weighed all the probabilities based on years of extensive chair sitting and have come to the conclusion that ordinary chairs very rarely collapse. Of course, If I saw a bizarre, unwieldy looking chair, I'd probably be more wary.[/quote]

Exactly. You have faith (by my definition, which may not be the same as yours) in ordinary looking chairs based upon experience. You don't call it faith, and that's fine but that is what my christian faith is based upon. Just like you I sometimes get surprises, i.e. things don't go as I expected them to, in which case you need to figure out why. 

I've really enjoyed this discussion but I'm not sure if this is the place for it. I also have a lot of other things to do that I'm getting distracted from. It's a shame we don't have PMs on this forum otherwise I'd be very happy to continue on a "when I've got a moment basis". 

iandusud wrote:

You have faith (by my definition, which may not be the same as yours) in ordinary looking chairs based upon experience. You don't call it faith, and that's fine but that is what my christian faith is based upon. Just like you I sometimes get surprises, i.e. things don't go as I expected them to, in which case you need to figure out why. 

I think the definition of "faith" that fits my view is probably:

Quote:

Specifically Firm belief based upon confidence in the authority and veracity of another, rather than upon one's own knowledge, reason, or judgment; earnest and trustful confidence: as, to have faith in the testimony of a witness; to have faith in a friend.

You could argue that I'm using faith to determine if a chair is sturdy, but I'd argue that I'm using my own judgement. If a friend says "that chair's sturdy", then I might be using faith if I was to sit on it without looking at it, but if I were to look at it and see a standard chair, then I'd be using my own judgement to confirm my friend's assessment.

As the term "faith" necessarily is a bit vauge and can become all-encompassing (similar to a web of trust), I'd declare that "faith" is for when there exists no feasible experiment or test. If there exists experiments/tests then you can either ignore them and rely on faith or as is more common, you rely on general expectations that the tests/experiments have been performed many times and that the results can be applied in general.

It's basically induction - as you test more chairs and continue to find sturdy chairs, you can form a hypothesis that all chairs are sturdy. That hypothesis gathers more experimental data until one day, you sit on a deck-chair that collapses which disproves your hypothesis. A new hypothesis could then be "non deck-chairs are sturdy" and "deck-chairs collapse" and eventually you might discern an underlying rule of chair-sturdiness and the method of their construction.

However, using faith to determine whether chairs are sturdy is unlikely to lead you to any deeper understanding of chair design and practicality as you'd either be relying on someone else's declaration of sturdiness or a more vague "some chairs are sturdy".

Faith may lead to a quicker conclusion about chairs, but the deeper understanding of chair construction may elude you without being able to form and test hypotheses.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I think the definition of "faith" that fits my view is probably:

Quote:

Specifically Firm belief based upon confidence in the authority and veracity of another, rather than upon one's own knowledge, reason, or judgment; earnest and trustful confidence: as, to have faith in the testimony of a witness; to have faith in a friend.

I find that definition a little strange as if one's "confidence in the authority and veracity of another" is not based "upon one's own knowledge, reason, or judgment" what is it based upon? Can you elucidate please

iandusud wrote:

I find that definition a little strange as if one's "confidence in the authority and veracity of another" is not based "upon one's own knowledge, reason, or judgment" what is it based upon? Can you elucidate please

That'd be most relevant in the context of a subject that you don't know much or anything about. I might have faith in a film critic's opinion of a film or an Amazon rating of some product though you could argue that the faith is based on your own judgement of them being worthy of faith (though I think that argument leads to absolutely everything being based on faith which I don't consider to be a useful conclusion).

hawkinspeter wrote:

iandusud wrote:

I find that definition a little strange as if one's "confidence in the authority and veracity of another" is not based "upon one's own knowledge, reason, or judgment" what is it based upon? Can you elucidate please

That'd be most relevant in the context of a subject that you don't know much or anything about. I might have faith in a film critic's opinion of a film or an Amazon rating of some product though you could argue that the faith is based on your own judgement of them being worthy of faith (though I think that argument leads to absolutely everything being based on faith which I don't consider to be a useful conclusion).

Well that is a very narrow definition of faith and, as you admit, does depend on your own judgement, which contradicts the definition that you gave. 

The point that I am trying to make is that faith in God (for most practising Christians, as opposed to those who call themselves christian based on their culture) is based upon experience in just the same way as I or anyone else trusts that the chair they sit on is not going to collapse under them, or that the food that they are served isn't going to poisen them. I fear that for many people who don't have a christian faith they think that it is some sort of mystical mumbo-jumbo and as such they think that Christians don't have the capacity to think rationally. 

iandusud wrote:

Well that is a very narrow definition of faith and, as you admit, does depend on your own judgement, which contradicts the definition that you gave. 

The point that I am trying to make is that faith in God (for most practising Christians, as opposed to those who call themselves christian based on their culture) is based upon experience in just the same way as I or anyone else trusts that the chair they sit on is not going to collapse under them, or that the food that they are served isn't going to poisen them. I fear that for many people who don't have a christian faith they think that it is some sort of mystical mumbo-jumbo and as such they think that Christians don't have the capacity to think rationally. 

Firstly, I have no issue with Christians being rational and everyone has some mix of rationality and irrationality.

I think the knowledge of chair-sturdiness is different to knowledge of god as there can be independent tests of how much weight a chair can support and there are many different quantitive questions you can ask of a chair (How many legs does it have? What angle can you tip it before it falls over? Maximum weight it can support?). I'm not sure that there's similar quantitive questions you can ask of deities that can be determined directly (presumably you can answer the number of legs from scripture). Instead properties of deities seem to be just assigned rather than determined i.e. you don't actually count the number of legs.

hawkinspeter wrote:

iandusud wrote:

Well that is a very narrow definition of faith and, as you admit, does depend on your own judgement, which contradicts the definition that you gave. 

The point that I am trying to make is that faith in God (for most practising Christians, as opposed to those who call themselves christian based on their culture) is based upon experience in just the same way as I or anyone else trusts that the chair they sit on is not going to collapse under them [ ... ]

I think the knowledge of chair-sturdiness is different to knowledge of god as there can be independent tests of how much weight a chair can support and there are many different quantitive questions you can ask of a chair (How many legs does it have? What angle can you tip it before it falls over? Maximum weight it can support?). I'm not sure that there's similar quantitive questions you can ask of deities that can be determined directly (presumably you can answer the number of legs from scripture). Instead properties of deities seem to be just assigned rather than determined i.e. you don't actually count the number of legs.

I can't recall which experiments lead to finding the number of angels on the head of the pin? People have certainly tried with some of these questions though...

Ian's point about "experience" is interesting. Where do you get your "knowledge" from? (e.g. All my awareness of bike trends and the terrible dangers of not wearing helmets / cycling two abreast / incorrect tyre pressure comes from road.cc).

As Bill Bailey says we're mostly relaxed empiricists. We take certain sources' word for it because there's more to know than we have time to test. We have reasonable but imperfect heuristics for knowledge. Leaving aside the range of biases we have not to change our opinions - and there are many - if something "works" (like with the chair) we don't recheck subsequent examples - unless we've had contrary experiences (the deckchair).

In my experience, people often cite as "experience" "things that happened to others well-known to me". We might also introspect certain things - that's more certain, right? However it's becoming increasingly clear from various lines of evidence that we have much less "direct access" to our internal processes than we think. So - at least for philosphy - "experience" is something to argue about with care. When we report "experience" we are reporting a memory and what we're memorising is as much "judgement" as "fact" / data. (And can be modified in the recalling too). The same even applies where "experience" was direct.

It's not exactly the same as the religious case but lack of thorough evidence-checking also occurs in science too - because scientists are humans. Unlike maths we don't need to prove - logically or exhaustively - every single instance. There also needs to be some motivation for doing the investigation. Some experiments took a long time to do simply because everyone "knew" the result (thought they did). Even core parts of the scientific system like replicating other work or publishing null results tends not to happen as often as it "should".

Outside of pure mathematics, there is always some element of relying on prior experiences. With mathematics, internal consistency is the only thing that matters apart from possibly whether or not the maths is interesting.

That's largely my main issue with religions is that they're either inconsistent or so vague as to not even reaching the level where you could determine inconsistency.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Outside of pure mathematics, there is always some element of relying on prior experiences. With mathematics, internal consistency is the only thing that matters apart from possibly whether or not the maths is interesting.

That's largely my main issue with religions is that they're either inconsistent or so vague as to not even reaching the level where you could determine inconsistency.

Agreed - but even pure mathematicians have to take some things on trust - and undoubtedly did so before even though they shouldn't. There are also certain conjectures which are widely "believed" to the extent of "speculative maths" e.g. "Given the Riemann hypothesis holds true, then..." I don't know whether that's done cheerfully or with a certain foreboding though.

I think both vagueness and inconsistency are features. Vagueness saves you creating yet more myth which you may need to maintain. Also it may help when the religion is competing for different populations.  If you've flexibility to fit some of their existing theories in then the process is easier.

As for inconsistencies there is a theory (think I found it in Pascal Boyer's book) which suggests that these and indeed the impossible / frankly bizarre can actually be useful features in maintaining a creed. First because we preferrentially remember the odd and unusual. Second if you something doesn't make sense it may force you to pass it on verbatim rather than summarising / reinterpreting. Such mnemonic tricks and anti-corruption mechanisms are important. Religious information has to be maintained in human memories at some point in time and is usually passed between humans at least in part. Where there isn't literacy, that's in whole.

I vaguely remember reading a sci-fi story where a particular planet was given a "holy" book from some other advanced alien race and it contained amongst the religion, some verifiable scientific knowledge that was clearly beyond what the target planet had achieved. That is what I'd like to see come from a supreme being - cold hard facts. Imagine if a bible contained atomic weights or some basic quantum theory - things that made definite predictions that could be falsified with sufficient tech.

IIRC it didn't work out well for the target planet as their "religion" became completely fanatical as their religion was quite clearly "true".

hawkinspeter wrote:

I vaguely remember reading a sci-fi story where a particular planet was given a "holy" book from some other advanced alien race and it contained amongst the religion, some verifiable scientific knowledge that was clearly beyond what the target planet had achieved. That is what I'd like to see come from a supreme being - cold hard facts. Imagine if a bible contained atomic weights or some basic quantum theory - things that made definite predictions that could be falsified with sufficient tech.

How you understand "cold hard facts" and how someone else would might be very different. You clearly have a world view that is dependent facts that can be observed or measured according to certain set of "scientific" criteria. And that is a very common post enlightenment world view in western culture. It isn't however the only world view. There are many who look at, and experience, nature and would see that as "cold hard facts" that point to a creator. This is particularly true of many indigenous peoples who, many would argue in the light of what damage the results of the enlightenment have brought upon the planet, have had a better understanding and relationship to the earth (creation, as they would see it) than we in the enlightened west. You may not hold their world view but it would be very unreasonable, IMO, to dismiss it.

The enlightenment has clearly had huge beneficial effects on society but I fear that we have thrown out the baby with the bath water.

iandusud wrote:

How you understand "cold hard facts" and how someone else would might be very different. You clearly have a world view that is dependent facts that can be observed or measured according to certain set of "scientific" criteria. And that is a very common post enlightenment world view in western culture. It isn't however the only world view. There are many who look at, and experience, nature and would see that as "cold hard facts" that point to a creator. This is particularly true of many indigenous peoples who, many would argue in the light of what damage the results of the enlightenment have brought upon the planet, have had a better understanding and relationship to the earth (creation, as they would see it) than we in the enlightened west. You may not hold their world view but it would be very unreasonable, IMO, to dismiss it.

The enlightenment has clearly had huge beneficial effects on society but I fear that we have thrown out the baby with the bath water.

I put more value in different world views than you might think. I'm not sure that organised religions have been a hugely beneficial influence on environmental matters though, so maybe taking on some of the beliefs of indigenous people might be a good idea nowadays. It's a shame that a lot of indigenous beliefs were subsumed into other religions though, so we've lost a lot of the knowledge that living in close contact with habitats brings.

Found this little examination of Christian, Muslim and secular communities' attitudes towards global warming where they find that lack of belief in an afterlife or divine intervention led secular participants to focus on human responsibility and the need for action: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X14000177

I'm a bit of a fan of https://www.thelongtimeproject.org/ as a way of thinking long term and I think it's short-term thinking that's responsible for the pickle we're in.

I'd better include a graph for a bit of fun (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/05/29/this-fascinating-chart-on-faith-and-climate-change-denial-has-been-reinforced-by-new-research/):

Jehovah's Witnesses are an interesting outlier

hawkinspeter wrote:

[...]

I'd better include a graph for a bit of fun (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/05/29/this-fascinating-chart-on-faith-and-climate-change-denial-has-been-reinforced-by-new-research/):

Jehovah's Witnesses are an interesting outlier

Charts?? And religion? Can't you at least give me more notice, where am I going to find popcorn at this time on the lord's day?

"I put more value in different world views than you might think"

I'm pleased to hear it but my point was in relation to your understanding of "cold hard facts". 

I'm not sure why you keep raising opinions on organised religions other than Christianity. I don't try and speak for them and am not qualified to do so. As for Christianity the two largest denominations in the world, Roman Catholic and Anglican, have been very vociferous on the subject of global warning and care for creation. I quote from the first article that you gave a link to:

"Nonetheless, Western Christianity, especially outside America, has demonstrated pro-environmental trends [15]. Harmony values and a stewardship ethic are visible within the modern Western church. The Anglican Church, for example, includes a declaration in The Five Marks of Mission concerning the safeguarding of ecological integrity and the sustenance and renewal of the earth"

The exact wording of the Anglican mission statement is "To strive to safeguard the integrity of creation and sustain and renew the life of the earth". This mission statement was adopted in 1984! My wife is the Environment Officer at the Angilcan church we attend and I can assure you that huge efforts are made to tackle climate change, not only from the point of view of being good stewards of the planet but also, and critically IMO, because it is a justice issue. My wife and I are very active environmentalists, as are very many Christians, for the reasons I just gave. 

I don't doubt that many Christians care very deeply about the enivronment, but as that chart shows, there is a big range of opinions from different churches and religions. It's quite striking that there seems to be a correlation between believing in ToE and wanting environmental regulations (except for Jehovah's Witnesses).

I still don't know why you're addressing your concerns to me about what religions other than Christianity think or believe. I'm not qualified to comment on it and nor have I sort to. 

You refer to "different churches" by which I presume you are referring to different denominations, of which there are many. You may have noticed that when referring to the church I do so in the singular. My understanding (and that of most denominations) of the church is based on the NT one - i.e. those that adhere to the divinity of Jesus and believe his in death and resurrection (among other things). This was always its meaning until "the church" got usurped by the state in the 4th century. So whilst I hold no particular allegiance to any particular denomination (although I attend and Anglican church) I would definitely look to the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches if I was looking for mainstream Christian thinking on the subject of care of the environment, as these two "churches" by far represent most people who identify as Christians. As soon as you look to other denominations you will probably find that they have a particular emphasis which they will favour above other concerns so it is not unusual that their interests lie elsewhere other than the environment for example.

Yes, I meant other denominations - I'm mentioning them as I tend to think of religions as huge varied group and even within denominations there will be many different opinions held ("we're all different"). I didn't mean to imply that you were somehow spokesperson for all religions, but the discussion was about different belief systems and not just Christianity.

Where I live in Bristol, we've got the Bethel United Church (very lively singing and dancing from when I've gone past), the Bethesda Methodist Church further down the road, St Marina Coptic Church, St Patrick's Catholic Church, Gurdwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha (Sikh), Gurdwara Nirman Sewak Jatha (Sikh) and The Hindu Temple all within 5 minutes walk, so I'm used to thinking in terms of other religions and not just Christianity. It's quite fun when the Sikhs have a procession as they pretty much block the A420 (Church Rd) for an hour or so as they march barefoot along it and back again whilst playing drums etc.

Another picture to show some environmental concern from them: