Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A study conducted by Katharine Hayhoe’s dad suggests even recorded lectures by Katharine Hayhoe can convert climate skeptics.
Study: Katharine Hayhoe is successfully convincing doubtful evangelicals about climate change
A new study finds that a lecture from evangelical climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe successfully educates evangelical college students, validating the “trusted sources” approach
Approximately one-quarter of Americans identify as evangelical Christians, and that group also tends to be more resistant to the reality of human-caused global warming. As a new paper by Brian Webb and Doug Hayhoe notes:
a 2008 study found that just 44% of evangelicals believed global warming to be caused mostly by human activities, compared to 64% of nonevangelicals (Smith and Leiserowitz, 2013) while, a 2011 survey found that only 27% of white evangelicals believed there to be a scientific consensus on climate change, compared to 40% of the American public (Public Religion Research Institute, 2011).
…
Hayhoe lecture’s effectiveness
The participants filled out a survey before and after the lecture, detailing their acceptance that global warming is happening, its cause, whether there’s a scientific consensus, how high of a priority they consider it, how worried they are about it, and how much it will harm various groups. The results showed an increase in pro-climate beliefs for every single question after listening to Katharine Hayhoe’s lecture.
Acceptance that global warming is happening increased for 48% of participants, and that humans are causing it for 39%. Awareness of the expert scientific consensus increased among 27% of participants. 52% were more worried about climate change after watching the lecture, and 67% increased their responses about how much harm climate change will do. 55% of participants viewed addressing climate change a higher priority after attending Katharine Hayhoe’s lecture. For most of the remaining participants, there was no change in responses to these questions.
By testing three different lecture approaches, Webb and Hayhoe also concluded that the lecture was equally effective when presented in person or as a recorded video, and that adding material about common climate misconceptions didn’t make the lecture any more effective.
…
The abstract of the study by Katharine’s dad;
Assessing the Influence of an Educational Presentation on Climate Change Beliefs at an Evangelical Christian College
Brian S. Webb, and Doug Hayhoe
Despite an overwhelming scientific consensus, a significant proportion of the American public continues to reject anthropogenic climate change. This disparity is particularly evident among evangelical Christians, for whom theological conservatism, general scientific skepticism, political affiliations, and sociocultural influences may impede their acceptance of human-caused climate change. Climate advocates have attempted to engage the evangelical community through various educational initiatives; lacking empirical measurement, however, it is difficult to draw conclusions regarding the efficacy of such programs. Here, we present the results of a study that addresses this lack by adapting questions from the Six Americas of Global Warming survey to measure the climate change beliefs of undergraduate students at an evangelical Christian college before and after attending a lecture by a Christian climate scientist. The 88 participants who successfully completed a pre- and post treatment survey were divided into three groups: the first attended a live lecture, the second attended a recorded lecture, and the third attended a similar version of the same recorded lecture in which the presenter removed material addressing common misconceptions about climate change. The results demonstrate a significant increase in the proclimate beliefs for students in all three groups. There was no significant difference between the impacts of the live and recorded lectures or between the recorded lectures with and without misconceptions. These findings affirm the value of climate education among evangelicals; highlight the potential utility of such presentations, both recorded and live; and point to opportunities for research in the area of faith-based climate communication.
Read more: http://www.nagt-jge.org/doi/abs/10.5408/16-220.1
Who can argue with dad’s peer reviewed science? Clearly all alarmists have to do to achieve complete victory in the climate debate is to convince everyone to watch a Katharine Hayhoe video.
indoctrination…………
You cannot indoctrinate someone in one lecture. Check what that means.
Of course, like any “survey” based study they do not print the questions which they asked but we can tell for what they do say that they were leading questions.
Anyone who starts out from “accepting the reality of…” is trying to impose a position, not “educate” anyone.
Oh yeah? By how much. What was the original question before the lecture ? Was it “are you aware of the overwhelming unscientific consensus of the reality that man is causing climate change ?”
They could have got the same result by reading WUWT.
Wow! A statistical population of under 30 in each group. Pappy Hayhoe needs to do his homework on statistics.
BTW my Mum thinks I’m great too, Maybe she could get her opinions published.
I love the word “treatment” there. Not only is this science “education”, it is a treatment for a psychological disorder.
Hayhoe , away we go, global warming , global warming
Hayhoe , away we go, riding on a donkey !!
The only two things I can see that can even be considered remotely conclusive from this study are:
1)Kathryn and her father are both completely unfamiliar with the scientific method at even a grade school level, and
2)Kathryn is no more convincing to her audience in person than she is on video, so she can now lower her carbon footprint by not flying or driving all over the planet to appear in person.
This doesn’t appear to be a study. It appears to be a data collection exercise without any follow up. What do these individuals believe in a year? What do they believe after Dr. Spencer presents a similar lecture? Are they familiar with the relevant arguments? If not, then who have you “convinced”? Better to bring your intellectual opponent with you to your “study” and take the survey after both sides are presented.
Acceptance that global warming is happening increased for 48% of participants
Good! It’s true that temps are up. Now the question becomes, “Why”? At least they aren’t going about arguing that such is not the case, which would make them appear uninformed at best and liars at worst.
and that humans are causing it for 39%
39% become “convinced”. So 61% were already doubting the veracity of AGW? I wonder what the stats are with atheist or agnostic students in the public university system after 12 years of indoctrination from public schools. At least these appear to have started out on a better footing than their peers. And then what are their views in a year, or perhaps after another individual presented the other side of the debate?
Awareness of the expert scientific consensus increased among 27% of participants
So the other 73% were already familiar with the so-called “consensus” and had rejected the lie? Recall only 39% appear to have become “convinced” that AGW is real.
52% were more worried about climate change after watching the lecture
52% were “more worried” when only 39% became convinced that humans are to be blamed? Ok given the doom and gloom scenario it would seem natural that young skulls full of mush might become “more worried”…until they aren’t anymore.
67% increased their responses about how much harm climate change will do.
What does this mean? Of these still only 39% seem to have accepted a human cause. I’m convinced that at a certain increase in temperature life on the planet will be harmed, but that’s meaningless as to whether I’m similarly convinced that anything can (and therefore, should) be done about it.
55% of participants viewed addressing climate change a higher priority after attending Katharine Hayhoe’s lecture.
Again, with only 39% being convinced that humans are the cause, what does this mean? Does this mean more study alone or does it mean more “doing” from government? What’s the new “priority”? perhaps now on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being highest priority, these students have moved climate change from 10 to 9, who knows?
For most of the remaining participants, there was no change in responses to these questions.
Despite the ad hominem against the young evangelicals here at WUWT, I’m certainly not convinced the Hayhoe’s have all that much reason to be hopeful to achieve their goals.
sy, you seem to be missing the point of the exercise. This never was about a debate and science, it is about finding a “treatment” for climate denialism amongst evangelicals and making people accept the Hayhoe “reality”.
If the vid doesn’t work , I guess the next step is electroshock aversion therapy. For really problematic cases, commitment to a special psychiatric unit for muscular injection of sulphur may be required. More funding is required to follow this work further.
i don’t think spencer would get the same numbers. (she looks a lot better than he does… ☺)
@Greg
“sy, you seem to be missing the point of the exercise. This never was about a debate and science, it is about finding a “treatment” for climate denialism amongst evangelicals and making people accept the Hayhoe “reality”.”
Indeed Greg…indeed…
>:-(
I think a few others have missed the point. Dad is advertising daddy’s-girl’s effectiveness to dimwitted activists.
“I think a few others have missed the point. Dad is advertising daddy’s-girl’s effectiveness to dimwitted activists.”
More ad hominem? How many logical fallacies can be bandied about without driving the rational individual mad??
Effectiveness? What effectiveness? Are you sure these individuals are such “dimwitted activists”? Do you have some evidence that these individuals are “dimwitted” other than your presuppositions about individuals with religious beliefs?
According to the “study”, assuming one chooses to believe the results without further inquiry, only 39% of those who are exposed to the lecture become convinced that AGW is human caused. If only 39% become convinced of the truth of AGW then it would seem logical to conclude that 61% don’t and stay that way, in which case, it would seem premature to argue that the set of all evangelical students are “dimwitted”, wouldn’t you agree?
Compare this with at least one survey (2016) regarding the evangelicals’ peers in the American university system:
“College students believe that global warming is becoming a more serious problem, with 55% now saying this is a very serious problem, up from 41% just last year.”
http://www.panettainstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/Survey-report-2016.pdf (p. 4)
I can’t speak to the veracity of the study referenced above, however, it doesn’t appear out of the bounds of reason to believe it given the state of the American secondary and undergrad public school systems.
If true, then more non-evangelicals (e.g., atheists, agnostics, etc.) already believe in the reality of AGW than those evangelicals who become convinced by Hayhoe.
In which case, who are the dimwits???
A study like this is meaningless.
When you listen to a presentation that sets out only one side of the case, ie., that side favouied by the presenter, of course, one is likely to see some increase in the number of people who accept the case as presented to them.
It would be rather different if a balanced presentation was made.
Who scored the data. I bet you a thousand dollars it was not a blinded or double blinded study. Wanna bet!
Sy,
Sorry, but the Panetta Institute and Hart survey company are immediately suspect.
@Gloateus
“Sy,
Sorry, but the Panetta Institute and Hart survey company are immediately suspect.”
Oh I see…many thanks for letting me know!
Say, perhaps when you have a few moments you could offer an approved list of survey and study vendors for both my edification and future reference?
🙂
absolutely you can….
“undergraduate students at an evangelical Christian college”….were already cocked and primed to believe what they were taught…and to trust the people teaching it
Try that again at some Jesuit school….
Lat – successfully educates evangelical college students, validating the “trusted sources” approach
Same sub-set that truly believes Jaba the Hut was really, really mean to Luke and Princess Leia, but only in a galaxy far, far away and long, long ago.
So Daddy’s little girl got her Propaganda Licence.
The indoctrination began when parents introduced the their trusting children to the religious dogma that promotes unwarranted belief and wishful thinking. Such willing thralls are easily convinced by almost any tripe that spills from the lips of its acolytes.
The latest lecture is merely more of the same psychology foisted upon the willingly ignorant.
All that has been demonstrated is that fools are foolish, and that “you can fool some of the people all of the time.”
Just can’t help pounding on your chest and screaming how smart you are, can you? Some people are just naturally insecure and have to constantly reassure themselves they are right.
deanfromohio August 28, 2017 at 5:27 pm
That some scientists from the 17th and 19th centuries held various Christian religious beliefs is not the point. Even today, some scientists doing worthy work still believe in a god of one kind or another.
Maxwell was indeed a conventional Presbyterian. Newton however was a Deist heretic, d*nying the Trinity. Modern scholarship agrees with his conclusion that 1 John 5:7 is in fact a spurious addition, in keeping with so much of the forgery in the NT, as partially recognized by Luther.
You grossly misrepresent Einstein’s religious beliefs, or lack thereof. He did not believe in a deity which intervened in human history, a personal God counting hairs on heads and falling sparrows, to Whom there was a point in praying. To the extent that he held spiritual feelings at all, he was a pantheist.
That some scientists have been adherents of various Christian denominations and other religions does not mean that mixing religion and science is scientific. Quite the contrary. Science looks only for naturalistic explanations. No supernatural explanations, hence non-explanations, need apply.
The God Hypothesis not only can’t make testable, falsifiable predictions, thus being antiscientific, but it’s also against Protestant theology, and maybe all Christian doctrine.
In what way are your own unfounded, non-evidenced beliefs NOT a religion?
Michael,
Requiring evidence of a God before becoming convinced that He exists isn’t a religion.
Even the famous atheist Dawkins allows that, logically, choosing atheism over agnosticism is just going with the lack of evidence for God. Even he can’t be strictly 100% sure that there is no God, since there is no way to demonstrate whether He does or doesn’t exist. He’s outside science.
deanfromohio August 29, 2017 at 11:48 am
You could not possibly be more wrong or sound less informed.
The pagan Greek world gave rise to science. It was revived in 16th century Europe, but no thanks to Christianity. The availability of ancient Greek works in their originals to Copernicus and Vesalius kick-started the scientific revolution.
The math behind modern science also arose in the ancient pagan Mediterranean world and in India.
You have been badly misinformed.
Well what if we aren’t skeptical, but are quite sure that the evidence says ” ho-hum ; wake me when something important happens. ”
G
Sorry Katie, you need to get a paying job.
That’s the problem. She, like creationists, has found a lucrative gig lying about science and religion.
Dean,
I protest correctly that professional creationists are liars.
OK lets TONE IT DOWN everybody, or I’ll close the thread.
Got me laughing. Those lying (purposeful deception = a lie) scum actually think they can convert me. HA HA.
Political Consensus – shove it up your butt.
ClimateGate – your downfall.
Yes, laughing is the only response to this – I thoroughly enjoyed it. Thanks, Eric Worall
I concluded long ago that I could convince some people that pigs fly backwards in winter, you just need to some fancy scientific sounding arguments and fancy sounding jargon. I bet I could get it into some social science journals.
From what I have heard lately, you wouldn’t have any trouble getting into “hard” science journals, either.
And uphill in both directions !
g
Interesting that Katherine Hayhoe identifies as an evangelical, given that she is one of the most egregious liars in climate alarmist circles. She has spent years trying to convince people that climate change was causing drought in Texas, and then switched to climate change causes floods. Perhaps she should check back over the ten commandments, or various other scriptures regarding truth. https://realclimatescience.com/2017/08/career-change-for-katharine-hayhoe/
All AGW zealots are evangelical , that is why logical argument is irrelevant to them and they will not debate the issue.
They are also bible thumpers. The IPCC is their bible and they thump it on a regular basis.
Note to Katharine Hayhoe:
Given the scientific evidence (as opposed to your appeals to corrupted authority like the IPCC), the sensitivity of climate to increasing atmospheric CO2 is very low, and there is no real global warming crisis, wilder weather crisis, etc. There is NO credible scientific evidence to support your viewpoint.
Even before the Climategate emails were published, it was clear that global warming alarmism was proposed by scoundrels and supported by imbeciles. The attempt of the global warming gang to shut down debate and intimidate their opposition is a classic tactic of those who have NO credibility, and so try to shout down their opponents.
In short, madame, I cannot say if you are a scoundrel or an imbecile, but will note that the two terms are not mutually exclusive.
God bless, Allan
So you get a group of students who have probably little or no exposure to climate change information and show them a one-sided lecture with no counter balancing arguments. And they are persuaded. Is this a surprise? What if, after viewing the lecture, they are presented with material from a different view point? Then test them again, and see how many remain converts.
This does address the fact that a vast majority of people are not exposed to the cut and thrust of the debate about AGW arguments, but only a few snippets from news broadcasts or social media feeds. Once they are confronted with the debate, they actually have to think about it and make a decision. It is an informed decision only if they get BOTH sides of the argument.
For a guy named “Mumbles” you sure are pretty clear…
“Once they are confronted with the debate, they actually have to think about it and make a decision.”
This makes their heads hurt, so they chant “La-La-La” and turn to their TVs to get more media-strained pablum that they won’t have to chew to swallow.
The presentation of only the facts which agree with the agenda and exclusion of others is the basis of all pr0paganda.
They have as much chance of converting me to this lunacy as they have to any other religion.
First of all, no true skeptic would ever attend one of her
lectures. Secondly, this self-selecting group is simply showing how easily-led they are, and that they essentially have schist-for-brains. Third, the effect of propaganda on sheeple is short-lived. Since they’ve proven that they have schist-for-brains, then they will believe just about anything as long as it comes from an “expert”.
Roy Spencer has been savagely attacked by people using his christian views against him.
I wonder if this gets him off the hook, and now evangelicals are OK.
{Hercules battled the Hydra, which was a three headed monster. Is the Double Standard a two headed monster?}
Everything the skeptics do is wrong, everything the global warming believers do is right. The actual content of what is being done is 100% irrelevant. Those are the rules.
In reality, the Hydra had nine heads. Perhaps you are thinking of Cerberus, the three-headed Hound of Hades.
I have never heard of Dr. Roy calling upon his personal religious views to present scientific arguments related to climate.
Some vague shadows from my misty past said something about rendering unto Cesar, those things that are Cesar’s, and verse vicea.
We can prove some things: others we can’t, but we believe them anyhow !
And we know for sure (Kurt Gödel) that there are some things we can’t prove no matter what, even though they may be true. There are problems that we can prove absolutely DO have a solution; and those proofs may give us NO hint whatsoever as to how to solve them.
G
Unfortunately, Dr. Roy has said that earth is homeostatic because of God.
So what?
In connection with the Big Bang theory and the issue of the origin of our highly ordered universe, on March 12, 1978, Dr. Penzias stated to the New York Times:
(Penzias, as cited in Bergman 1994, 183; see also Brian 1995, 163).
CTM,
One of Dr. Penzias’ daughters is a rabbi.
There are no actual “data” on the Big Bang in the Bible.
That’s an extremely poor interpretation of the quote with a nice ad hom referring to his daughter’s accomplishments as if it were a negative. I’ve seen you do better than this. But I’m not going to get into a back and forth, because I’ll have to censor myself. You are welcome to reply, but I’m stopping myself now.
CTM,
Thanks.
It’s not an ad hominem. It’s to show that Penzias was not making a scientific statement but a religious one.
The fact is that there are no scientific data in the Bible, so his statement is meaningless from a scientific standpoint.
He and his Bell Labs colleague Wilson discovered the CMB radiation not because of the Bible but by accident, while setting up for radioastronomical and satellite communications experiments. Nor did Alpher and Herman, who predicted the CMBR in 1948, rely upon any biblical “data” in making their prediction.
Telling lies is only effective when the recipients are blocked from hearing alternative facts.
Those who watched and believed Al Gore’s latest climate fantasy show and then read Spencer’s
rebuttal are not likely to ever believe anything Gore says in the future. This is why the global warming crowd never wants any debates on the issue . Notice that this liar also assumes the same identity as her recipients – I’m one of you, therfore you can believe me. Notice also that these are “lectures” not debates or not even discussions about the subject. She doesn’t have to explain alternative data/theories because her listeners are ignorant of such things. It is easy to convince people who know nothing about the subject you are dealing with.
That is also why Socialism is so popular.
Socialism is popular mainly because governments can give out “free goodies” like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, ObamaCare subsidies, pension promises, welfare, etc. TO BUY VOTES … until they run out of “other people’s money” to spend.
A secondary problem is that few people understand economics — they fail to understand that a “bigger” government means a “smaller” private sector … and its the private sector that to has to pay the taxes to fund the goobermint !
Taxes do NOT pay for the government (federal). Taxes are used to give value to our fiat currency since 1933 because you require them to pay for taxes.
Total taxes for 2016 were only $2,845,362,000 ($2.8 trillion). See Table IV on pg. 2 of 2.
“Total Issues” of currency created (mainly treasury securities) by the US Treasury in 2016 for US government expenses was $95,648,584,000 ($95.6 trillion). See Table III-A same page.
So how in God’s name do taxes pay for government expenses?
Very astute MRW
With the US being the default reserve currency for the world it is very easy to spend unlimited amounts of money. Taxes are really the validation of the currency.
This is why I like Bitcoin.
MRW you ignored the redemptions of $94.2 trillion.
Not at all, Michael Jankowski. That’s the amount that the federal government actually spent in 2016 meeting its expenses (not the amount of USD created in 2016, which are the “Issues”).
You’ll notice that the difference between the two amounts is called “Net Change in Public Debt Outstanding.” That’s the amount that the federal government allowed the people to keep in 2016; it’s not an amount that has to be paid back, or will be owed by children or grandchildren.
In 2016, that amount was $1,422,827,000 or $1.4 trillion.
“Net Change in Public Debt Outstanding” is also called the National Debt. [The 2016 amount would be what is added to tally, kept since 1791.]
It’s free stuff ! Surely that’s good ??
g
Arthur4563,
The liberal Australian blog, The Conversation, recently had an article from Hayhoe, supporting the paper by Oreskes et al., focused on what Exxon knew and when they knew it. Oreskes claims that examination of internal memos, obtained for the time period 1977 through 2014, establishes that Exxon has been deceiving the public since at least the late-1970s.
I pointed out that the testimonial from Hayhoe (“I was an Exxon-funded climate scientist”) about her short stint with Exxon in the late-1990s hardly constituted support for Exxon having known anything definitive 20 years earlier. Further, Global Circulation Models were in their infancy in the 1970s and it would have been irresponsible for Exxon management to assume that they had the final answer and no further research was necessary to guide long-range planning. I also remarked that today’s models are running hot, which is even admitted by the modelers, so Exxon STILL isn’t certain what reality is.
My comment was unceremoniously removed promptly, without even the courtesy of a notification! The Conversation obviously recognizes that “Telling lies is only effective when the recipients are blocked from hearing alternative facts.” I had another couple of comments removed, one because I was being sarcastic to an AGW supporter who put out a warning to “lurkers” that “deniers are liars.” His attack was not deleted. Bizarrely, I had another comment removed where I was agreeing with that particular AGW supporter that most of the retractions in science journals were in social and biological sciences. Although, I had the temerity to remark about the Climategate scandals and mention the antics of Karl adjusting superior data to agree with inferior data. I was notified about the removal of the latter two comments. However, comments replying to me were retained, whereas the supposed policy is to remove an entire thread if one of the comments violates their guidelines.
It is obvious that The Conversation is more interested in serving up a pablum of propaganda than trying to facilitate discussion of complex and contentious topics. Ironically, one of the commenters advocated suing “deniers” for fraud. How about suing The Conversation for falsely presenting what is known about Climate Change through manipulations of what is allowed to be read, in violation of their own guidelines?
Clyde Spencer
I frequently admire WUWT for inviting Nick Stokes, Griff etc. to contribute. I might not like what they write, but I’ll defend their right to express themselves. And I know some particularly nasty trolls have been excluded, but Nick and Griff et al are prepared to engage in debate, not slanging.
And frankly, the more that are invited to engage with WUWT, the more are likely to see the light. 🙂
HotScot,
It is one of the ironies of our times that the sentiment of “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it.”, [commonly erroneously attributed to Voltaire] was once a hallmark of Liberals. They are now the ones wanting to censor things they don’t agree with or approve of!
However, to the best of my knowledge, Griff has never apologized for libeling Dr. Susan Crockford.
Clyde, that article was even picked up and reported on some new sites, such as this one:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11912062
The bit I liked was when she said “Fresh out of Canada, I was unaware that there were people who didn’t accept climate science – so unaware, in fact, that it was nearly half a year before I realized I’d married one – let alone that Exxon was funding a disinformation campaign at the very same time it was supporting my research on the most expedient ways to reduce the impact of humans on climate.”
Really?? This so-called great communicator didn’t pick up that her husband had climate science concerns. I’d like to know how that panned out.
Her parents were missionaries, so she’s just continuing the family shtick.
Apparently she stayed married to her allegedly skeptic husband, who is a pastor in TX. Dunno if she managed to convert him to the Church of CACA.
So staunchly religious people are easily swayed into a religion? Shocker.
The same group of evangelicals elected Trump. Case closed.
Dr. Hayhoe helped to elect Trump. Mysterious ways.
Ouch!
Well no ! They MAY have voted for him; but there aren’t nearly enough evangelicals to have elected him.
A lot of rational people voted for him too; people who don’t like out and out crooks like the Clanton Gang.
G
deanfromohio August 28, 2017 at 8:04 am
Kindly explain then please his warm reception at Liberty University in January 2016.
Thanks.
There is a great difference between “staunchly religious” and “young evangelical”. I think many, if not most “staunchly religious” people would opine that the “young evangelicals” are in it not because of any carefully considered beliefs, but because of the emotional high they get from being Dedicated to a Cause.
And what is truth, oh wise one?
Deanfromohio,
I guess you missed this one:
Matthew 5:22
” But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.”
Hope you enjoy the heat 🙂
Dean,
Like so many avowed “Christians” seems to miss the point of Christianity.
Oops. Inserted a carriage return there not meant.
Well failure to present rational explanations for something, does not justify presenting completely irrational explanations.
The good old, ” I don’t know. ” always works in such cases.
G
You have the cart before the horse. Staunchly religious people are not swayed. That is why, after all these years of ridicule and public contempt for religion they are still staunchly religious.
Jeez, are we really descending into tabloid-style scientific studies? In other news John Cook’s Mom says that everything he’s ever done is 100% truthful, and anyone who disagrees is a poophead.
ROFL 🙂
97%
Sounds like Mrs Brown in STL, where thug lives matter.
Old Grey Badger,
Oh my crap. I literally spewed Pepsi!!
+a million
I suppose this is what they call Pa review.
No assessment of AGW belief should be measure without putting a figure to it. eg would they spend $1 more a month to solve it? $2? $500? $5000? Everyone has a limit at which blind faith in the science breaks down and they start to reserve judgement. As a percentage of income the amount even fervent believers are prepared to spend is tiny.
Hayhoe’s success can be likened to moving a mountain one grain at a time. Sure, if you zoom in, the grains look like boulders. But move back to see the bigger picture and you see how ineffective she is.
“Despite an overwhelming consensus..”. Next!
“Overwhelming consensus..” …. and her dad! Also not forgetting most daughters can wrap their father around their little finger to get their own way!
Excerpted from the above quoted commentary:
The cited paper claims that, to wit:
And that, to wit:
Well, taudy dah, ….. so you have a “Bible believing” evangelical ……. lecturing a group of “Bible believing” evangelical college students about the dastardly evils associated with the “settled science” of human-caused global warming.
And just why would anyone think that one (1) of the students in the above noted group of “Bible believing” evangelical college students ….. would actually state on a survey that he/she disagreed with the claims of said “Bible believing” evangelical lecturer?
Pretty much everyone that attends such lectures hosted by “Bible believing” evangelicals, …… pretty much already believe most everything being touted by the lecturer.
They recognize a false prophet when they see one, though.
Some of them do, to wit:
Well duh. Evangelicals are prone to believe in future scenarios of hell, fire, and brimstone unless measures are taken now to do something. Every disciple has a pocketful of “tracts” that says so.
It’s amazing how some people allow their opinions to inform their facts.
It has always fascinated me that the global warming predictions are very much in line with Biblical predictions concerning the end of the earth. Technically, global warming believers are in line with Biblical prophesy on this one.
Warmisim is essentially Genesis painted over with Day-Glo green.
Since Progressivism has essentially ousted God as a means of social control, they had to do SOMETHING with all that left-over Catholic guilt.
You don’t suppose the people who invented the terrors of the underworld were trying to control other people through fear?
I see totally different prophecies being ironically fulfilled by the CAGW crowd myself:
people will be lovers of self (academics) lovers of money (grants and awards) proud, arrogant, abusive (Mickey Mann, Lew, Cook, and others) slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit (certain CAGW bloggers come to mind)
How ironic that atheists and agnostics, and those who cannot fathom religion and science in harmony, actually help fulfill ancient prophecies from a book they abhor.
Not quite correct. Evangelicals believe in a future of fire and brimstone because an inerrant bible says so. There is nothing that will prevent it. Some people will escape the consequences; but that is true also of sea level rise. Just choose a location above sea level.
She gets her religious beliefs from a peer-reviewed bible.
Odd that these folks reject the idea that their creator put all these wonderful resources on the planet which they call their “temporary home”, so that mankind could “multiply and subdue the earth” as commanded in Genesis. To believe that their god is a trickster, who would plant a “tree of resourcefulness” and mention no warnings against consumption of it’s fruit should clash with any sort of faith in a kind and loving creator.
Do they think that God would just quit running the show and let fate take over?
Here’s My Hey-Ho on the religious crowd and AGW.
An Ode to the Church On Fighting Climate Change.
Bureaucrats and Global Planners
Speak in agitated manners,
Predicating great disaster:
“Climate change we now must master!”
Human guilt and blame beseeching:
“Children, shame we should be teaching!
Man has sinned by overreaching
Fragile Gaia’s limit!”
Beware: this bold apostasy
Spins prophesy from vanity!
The firmaments will never be
Controlled by mortal hands.
So, use this world, as best you can,
To take care of your fellow man
And leave Earth’s destiny to God’s great plan!
This Universe is God’s, alone
Commanding elements He owns.
Perplexes any man’s control,
Yet, still provides for every soul!
It works as a rap too. Can I have a grant to build a boom-box?
I kinda imagine Charlotte Church singing it to a modern liturgical hymn with fingerstyle guitar.
To each his own, feel free to pass on the lyrics as I am only the vessel, and the words came from inspiration that must be shared.
Well, it’s easier to get somebody who’s gullible enough to believe in one imaginary deity to believe in another equally imaginary thing, especially when prayers, indulgences & self-denial figure highly in both.
Again, beating one’s chest as to how smart you are. Nothing says insecure loser like those who must constantly bleet their superiority. Kind of the those warmists—name calling and ridiculing are definately part of the skeptic tradition. You’re a great role model—for the warmists.
+10000
Mocking people who believe in sky fairies is just the same as mocking earnest liberals: bloody good fun.
david smith writes “Mocking people who believe in sky fairies…”
I have never met a person that believes in sky fairies; other than you of course. Perhaps you could describe “sky fairy” so I have some sense of what it is belief in which is being mocked.
“sky fairy”, “bloke with a beard in the sky”, “higher being” “god”, call it what you will. It’s just fairy stories.
David Smith writes “sky fairy, bloke with a beard in the sky, higher being, god, call it what you will. It’s just fairy stories.”
So what makes you any more correct than anyone else making a claim?
LOGIC: If any differences can be found between two instances of a class, it is thus implied that there is a least and a greatest in that class. Somewhere in this universe is someone smarter than you, and somewhere else is someone smartest of all, by any measure you care to specify. Whoever or whatever is at the top is the supreme being, call it what you will 😉 it cannot fail to exist.
Say Michael (if you’re still around), I’m curious whether you’re using this as an argument for the existence of God or if I’ve misunderstood your point?
I found this interesting but subject to objection in that this “supreme being” you derive as the “smarter than you” being appears to exist as an instance in the same class as a human. But wouldn’t an “Other” being, i.e., a God being, exist outside of that class, in which case, how do bridge the gap between the created and the Creator?
sy computing wrote “I’m curious whether you’re using this as an argument for the existence of God”
Yes and no. I’m a bit pedantic; there’s no point arguing a thing if the thing itself is undefined. Of course it exists, or it does not; a lot like Schroedinger’s Cat until an observation is made as to what exactly one thinks exists or does not exist.
It should be obvious that for any particular skill or trait, should you observe that one instance is greater than another thus establishing a slope, somewhere exists a greatest. That does not mean infinite; merely greatest. Weird things happen when you start throwing around “infinite”, you get paradoxes. So to me, “all knowing” simply means knowing what is knowable, and not knowing what is not knowable. How can there be such a thing as infinite knowledge? I don’t even accept it as a mystery; the concept is inherently stupid in my opinion, it’s lazy!
“you derive as the smarter than you being appears to exist as an instance in the same class as a human.”
I am delighted that you noticed. To me this god is not only anthropomorphic I’m in the lineage (and so are you). I was in Alaska contemplating things; rather a lot of time to contemplate things when it is cold and windy outside, cold but not so windy inside. Every living thing makes more of its own kind. It came to me that God is doing the same. You don’t *create* (ex-nihilo), you form, adapt, mold, grow, develop, evolve whatever is at hand with as light at touch as reasonably possible. Maybe no touch at all; after all, the bible says the *Earth* brought forth every living thing; God’s involvement seems to be to observe that it is “good”.
Some years (decades?) ago, Battlestar Galactica explored that exact concept. What is the ultimate fate of humankind assuming it survives its own misadventures? What will we look like to less advanced yet intelligent species we encounter?
“how do bridge the gap between the created and the Creator?”
We don’t; he does if he wishes. Do you wish your computer program to talk to you? If so then you program it to do so and it will do so and it cannot fail to do so unless you implanted that failure.
Suppose you are a god, a million years old and you finally have gotten tired of playing “Solitaire”. You want something fresh, something that can carry the baton, maybe even like any good parent wish for your children to go where you have not gone. You cannot create such a thing; it must develop and grow. With that understanding suddenly the paradox of evil vanishes; God did not create the sinner or the holy man! They evolved, made choices, heeded counsel good or evil. Many parables exist of “sifting wheat from chaff”. How is it possible that God’s creation contains chaff? It is because this creation is not “ex nihilo”. Earth was already here, merely “void” whatever exactly that means. It was shaped and made ready for school and we are the students.
Sy,
Right you are. The whole point about God in Christian theology is that He is the Wholly Other. He’s not as were the gods of ancient myth, to include the Hebrews’ chief tribal god YHWH, ie larger than mortals and immortal but otherwise anthropomorphic beings.
Actually, with all due respect I would argue that in Christianity the “whole point’ is far from YHVH (yes, that’s a “V” and not an “H” on purpose because it’s a “VAV”, not a “WAV”!) being “Wholly Other”. See Hebrews 4:15.
I’m with you, btw, on the notion that belief is by faith alone. I agree that there exists no argument for the existence of YHVH that is valid. I say this on the basis of Ephesians 2:8. That’s why I’m asking Michael about his argument.
sy computing writes “I agree that there exists no argument for the existence of YHVH that is valid.”
Similarly for the nonexistence. I admire people’s attempts over nearly 2000 years to define a thing that to me seems pretty simple; I almost suspect there’s an intention to make it unnecessarily complicated for non-obvious purposes; perhaps sustain a priesthood where otherwise such a thing might not be necessary.
Arguing for supreme beings is easy. Arnold Schwarzenegger was once a supreme being, Mr Universe if I remember right. Arguing for something that probably cannot exist is going to be considerably more difficult and will take hundreds of pages of convoluted reasoning that ultimately loops back on itself.
Whoops…that would be an “W”, rather than an “H”, obviously… 🙂
Michael:
Yes and no. I’m a bit pedantic; there’s no point arguing a thing if the thing itself is undefined. Of course it exists, or it does not; a lot like Schroedinger’s Cat until an observation is made as to what exactly one thinks exists or does not exist.
I see. Well if you ever decide to work the argument out I hope you’ll let me know. I suspect it would be an interesting read.
Weird things happen when you start throwing around “infinite”, you get paradoxes. So to me, “all knowing” simply means knowing what is knowable, and not knowing what is not knowable.
Or, “all knowing” could even mean just knowing what is knowable without talking about that which isn’t knowable. After all, how could one know whether or not that which was not knowable even existed as something that could not be known? How would we define even one thing which belongs in the set of all things which are unable be known? As you said, there’s no point arguing a thing if the thing itself is undefined.
I am delighted that you noticed.
Thank you. I’ll take that as a compliment!
Every living thing makes more of its own kind. It came to me that God is doing the same. You don’t *create* (ex-nihilo), you form, adapt, mold, grow, develop, evolve whatever is at hand with as light at touch as reasonably possible.
Maybe. That presupposes a lot, e.g., that there was stuff at hand and you want to “form, adapt…”, etc., with “as light a touch as reasonably possible”. Maybe there wasn’t stuff at hand and maybe you want to be hands on. I want to know from whence that big rock that blew up came, if indeed that’s actually what happened. And were I god I would likely want to be hands on in case of trouble. It’s not like I don’t fix my .NET apps when they break. Rather, I direct them in the way I want them to go, so that when they’re old they don’t depart from that path.
Maybe no touch at all; after all, the bible says the *Earth* brought forth every living thing; God’s involvement seems to be to observe that it is “good”.
Not quite. As I read the text It would seem God’s first move was to *create* the earth, after which he pronounced his creation, “good”. There’s more than observation there.
Suppose you are a god, a million years old and you finally have gotten tired of playing “Solitaire”. You want something fresh, something that can carry the baton, maybe even like any good parent wish for your children to go where you have not gone. You cannot create such a thing; it must develop and grow.
Even with the sink or swim method it would seem logical that the “good parent” would remain right there at the shoreline ready to dive in should the child start to drown. And is it not the case that good parents rarely leave their children to “develop and grow” all on their own? Rather, it would seem the more successful method of “good” parenting is to love, nurture, instruct and reprove in a hands-on manner.
Many parables exist of “sifting wheat from chaff”. How is it possible that God’s creation contains chaff? It is because this creation is not “ex nihilo”. Earth was already here, merely “void” whatever exactly that means.
I’m not sure how it necessarily follows from the existence of chaff that the creation must therefore have already existed as well. How does one relate to the other in terms of existence? Maybe the chaff exists simply because the chaff chose not to heed the instruction that was offered or available to them and made bad choices in the ex nihilo creation?
I know this probably isn’t the forum to continue a conversation like this, but I certainly enjoyed your many contributions to this thread!
sy computing writes “Even with the sink or swim method it would seem logical that the good parent would remain right there at the shoreline ready to dive in should the child start to drown.”
Interesting metaphor. I nearly died that very way and it was my best friend that saved my life. The day I thought I had learned how to swim at the shallow end of the pool. I jumped in the deep end and was having some difficulty getting back to the surface. I remember the event rather clearly. I was very cautious around water for a good many years after that (now I’m a PADI certified diver, but still cautious around water).
Suppose the child is 40 years old; is the now-65 year old parent going to follow his child around to prevent this drowning? That is unreasonable and a huge burden; eventually the parent will die and the child will have been sheltered to his doom. So you create the circumstance where you find out whether he is going to drown, while he is still young and in your care. Find out if he’s going to start fires, do drugs or whatever, while you still have a chance to try to change his path.
The young bird must fly or die. I have watched young eagles make their first flight; the parents basically starve him out of the nest, enticing him with fish from a small distance, but he must fly to it. There is great joy when he makes that first flight. The parents know he is ready, *he* is the one that does not know. Of course much preparation has taken place before this moment.
I do not believe in predestination. Everyone born to this world has a choice to make and is free to make it. A few perhaps are not free to make it and I believe mercy exists for those circumstances. There is a principle in my religion that all persons will find whatever happiness they believe exists; that they will not be happy to have a heaven forced upon them in the next life that they did not want in this one.
Will there be evil in heaven? No. Those who choose evil are already drowned. I do not know how much effort God and the angels will have made to obtain a happier outcome, but whatever it is, the evidence is that God will not force anyone to heaven.
To most Christians, humans are “pets”, bred to worship God for ever and ever never mind scant evidence that this supposed plan of God is working.
Agreed…sola fide
I believe the priesthood argument is very true. But I suspect an even larger part of the problem is also due to the “need” of the many to reconcile the claims of (specifically) Christianity to Reason. Some of those claims just aren’t going to stand up to logic given the current state of the human mind. That’s not to say they won’t ever, but for now, no.
But so what? At one point in human history you couldn’t logically make the claim that the planet was round. By all available empirical evidence at the time such a thing was nonsensical. At one time bloodletting was an accepted medical solution for many illnesses that cannot now be considered blood borne. The list goes on.
So I used to be that way, i.e., trying to reconcile my faith to logical analysis. Now I don’t really care. Matters of faith are just that. I don’t need to reconcile the idea of the Trinity. I don’t need to solve the Problem of Evil. I’m happy to accept that my ways are not his ways and my thoughts are not his thoughts, i.e., that I see through a glass darkly, but that someday I’ll see things as they are.
A wise man has got to know (and accept) his limitations. No matter where you are there you go.
Sy,
Maybe a nitpick, but the empirical evidence has always been there that the earth is a sphere. It’s just that before pagan Greek natural philosophers of c. 600 BC, no one had looked at the evidence in scientific manner. Previously, people had thought pre-scientifically, although many ancient peoples did make useful observations.
Or possibly not until 500 BC, but in any case well before Plato (427–347 BC).
Dude…
I luv ya…
But just chill and let it go…
🙂
I’m sorry you suffered such an experience…of course I couldn’t have known.
“Suppose the child is 40 years old; is the now-65 year old parent going to follow his child around to prevent this drowning?”
I suppose it depends on the relationship between the parent and child. E.g., who is the parent and what is the state of the child? Many years ago my wife was asked of some aged but dear friends of hers to look after their mentally retarded daughter (who was around 50 at the time) after their death. She (i.e., the daughter) was fully functioning on her own in society despite her malady, yet their concern was still justified. They loved her and wished for someone they trusted to care for her when they could no longer do so.
Without mental malady, e.g., within my own family, I notice the parent/child bond still remains quite strong even unto advanced age. For example, my grandmother died at 88, yet she never failed to speak of (and to) my (then) 70 year old mother as her “little girl” when the situation warranted it. Similarly, it seems no matter how much I age (I just turned 50) my now 74 year old mother is still “Mom” and I remain, “Son”. Sometimes (to my chagrin) at family gatherings it would seem I am still her “little boy”…and such will it remain in her mind until death.
To be sure, our relationship has changed as any parent/child relationship should change as an individual matures, but the parenting instinct seems to remain at the ready involuntarily and/or immediately if the parent deems it necessary.
Should such a relationship between God and his children be any different, or would it be reasonable to assume that such a relationship could be even stronger given the “supreme” nature of the higher being? Were I god would I leave my children in such a state to fend for themselves alone or would I act more like YHVH?
“That is unreasonable and a huge burden; eventually the parent will die and the child will have been sheltered to his doom.”
Should it be such a burden for a god? An “all knowing”, supreme being “a million years old” under your assumptions or the eternal YHVH under mine? I’m not sure why except to assume so and then I don’t know why your assumptions are more reasonable than mine. A wise man once said, “Why are your claims better than someone else’s…” or something similar. That man was you 🙂
“So you create the circumstance where you find out whether he is going to drown, while he is still young and in your care. Find out if he’s going to start fires, do drugs or whatever, while you still have a chance to try to change his path.”
Well this seems to presuppose more than merely creating the initial environment and then stepping back to observe what happens, which appeared to be your earlier premise. Or at least that’s what I understood you to say?
“The young bird must fly or die. I have watched young eagles make their first flight; the parents basically starve him out of the nest, enticing him with fish from a small distance, but he must fly to it.”
I’m sure that’s quite the sight to behold…a series of events that are a testament to the rational coding of nature. But humanity doesn’t quite do the same thing in most cases do they? Rather, in general we remain in contact with our parents throughout our lifetime; sometimes coming home in times of trouble or despair, but if not, nevertheless always having the surety of someone who loves us and is there for us in our time of need. I say, “in general”, with full knowledge that such is not always the case, naturally.
But in the case of a god for what reason would he not love his children unconditionally if even those lower than he are able to love unconditionally? Does the creature have more admirable attributes than the creator?
“I do not believe in predestination. Everyone born to this world has a choice to make and is free to make it.”
Ah free will! A topic of particular interest to me. Unfortunately this forum is probably not the best place to discuss such a theme, but I have some preliminary ideas to bounce off of you.
How free do you really believe your will is? What the heck is the “will” in the first place? It starts with a thought, wouldn’t you agree? What’s a thought? No one seems to know. The best that can be said (or so it appears) is it’s a firing of certain neurons across certain pathways in the brain.
Okay I’ll buy that, but then from whence does the *original* thought come before the firing takes place??? If we can see a thought or thinking taking place in the brain and such is defined as an electrical signal across flesh, what about the origination point?? What fires it?
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/10/how-the-brain-builds-new-thoughts/
https://engineering.mit.edu/engage/ask-an-engineer/what-are-thoughts-made-of/
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/Message.aspx/5343
That last one above is a doozy…but it shows how desperate some are to try to define a simple thing such as a thought or “the will”, but we just don’t appear to have a clue where the thing starts.
I remember one of my favorite undergrad philosophy professors telling us about a school of thought that suggested that all thought, all speech, everything we did was just a random firing of neurons…there was no rhyme nor reason to our existence. His reply was “but that’s just stupid”. And indeed it is, however, that school of thought was basing their argument on empirical data.
Anyway, do an exercise with me and tell me afterward how free you think your will is. These are just some silly examples but they make the point.
What’s your favorite color? For 5 seconds, change that color to red. If it’s already red, change it to blue. Are you able? Why not, you have free will don’t you?
What’s your favorite food? For just 5 seconds, change that to steak. If it’s already steak, change it to fish. Are you able? Why not?
Are you married? For just 5 seconds, fall out of love with your spouse. If you’re not in love, then fall in love with her. Are you able via free will alone to change your current state of mind? If not, why not? I thought you were able to make any choice you wanted to make?
Now think about limitations of time, space and the physical. E.g., using your free will alone, get up and walk to the kitchen. Did you use your legs? Then you violated the terms of the exercise.
“Well that’s just silly you say”.
Tell that to the individual who doesn’t have legs.
The examples are numerous and I’m sure you can come up with better ones on your own.
First she’d have to convince me to be an evangelical.
Why? She’s not one.
What more can a study include?
• Conflicts of interest.
• Argumentum ad Populum”
• Faith based science.
• Emphasis on weasel words.
• Such a large study! “The 88 participants who successfully completed a pre- and post treatment survey were divided into three groups: the first attended a live lecture, the second attended a recorded lecture, and the third attended a similar version of the same recorded lecture in which the presenter removed material addressing common misconceptions about climate change.” That’s 29.3 participants per study portion.
Not to overlook their heavy use of inclusive and exclusive words to artificially sway opinions:
• “The results showed an increase in pro-climate beliefs for every single question after listening to Katharine Hayhoe’s lecture” Isn’t that cute, “pro-climate”?
• “Despite an overwhelming scientific consensus” Overwhelming? Consensus?
Next, they’ll gauge which religion is the real one based on Argumentum ad Populum.
Anyone care to lay odds that the evangelical students were fed during the study?
Oh katherine, if there was someone who cannot actually debate anything, and just blocking you immediately, it’s Hayhoe. Mrs Permanent drought. Now the whole family are cashing in on tax payer funds?
Her lectures contain patent falsehoods, as in lies and (comments disabled)
If I post a picture of pigs swilling at a trough, it has nothing to do with this tropic.
I am curious if hypnosis techniques are being employed by some of these warmistas types
Why hypnotize when you can just fake the data?
FYI Anthony\mods
Is there something amiss, I keep getting redirected from this site and this site only after about 3 or 4 minutes, on chrome or firefox.. it’s weird.
If I experienced such a thing my first thought is a proxy injecting a redirect in the stream. Such a thing is difficult but not perhaps impossible with SSL. It is fairly common with “malware” right on your computer.
It’s a religion.
Testing the music in stores to impact shoppers’ behavior also works.
Good point!
Thanks Dad, I needed that……
That Heyhoe’s daddy is in on her pseudo biblical deception is not surprising but still disappointing.
I’m unable to sway anyone to my skeptical views because they involve math and statistics. Maybe I ought to study homiletics.
Not a single word about what was IN the miraculous lecture. All it proves is she is a skilled persuader. If it was anything genuine, they would certainly have at minimum provided a summary.
She just cherry-picked her audience, then arranged the ultimate in pal review and probably fudged some data. Straight out of the AGW playbook.
“All it proves is she is a skilled persuader.”
This may not even prove that much. I’m going to make couple of assumptions. One is that an evangelical Christian college is likely to be in the south. The other follows on the first that most of the students would probably be from the south.
When Southerners are engaged in conversation, or whatnot, with someone who is pleasant and respectful they tend to treat the person respectfully and pleasantly in return. At least some would be likely to fib a bit ‘so as not to hurt the nice lady’s feelings.’ This sort of thing is considered to be good behavior and the kind of thing Grandma would be proud of. Grandma loves good manners.
I won’t declare that this is how things must be. I’ve never met any of these people involved so don’t know them. But, I think it’s likely.
A cynic might say that she used that behavior to achieve a desired result, but I’m not a cynic. So, I won’t say it.
Bless her little heart!
Climate alarmist are evangelicals.
88 participants??? 88. 88!!
That is a representative sample????
She CLEARLY gets her “scientific” rigor from her father.
I bet all 88 had to attend in order to get a class credit for that semester.
Perhaps it would have been more biblically meaningful if it had been 70×7…
Did she define what the “consensus” is? It occurs to me that a consensus statement would have difficulty getting signatures if it was along the lines:
“I am convinced by evidence and reasonable inference that the majority of the warming of Earth since 1890 was caused by human activity and that it is currently dangerous and will undoubtedly become more dangerous if human activity causing said warming is not curtailed.”
Without this type of analysis I believe the very nature of the “consensus” studies is questionable and more akin to detecting political or religious beliefs.
The signed statement approach is that taken by the Petition project that is mostly disparaged by the consensus crowd because it disagrees with counting subjectively analyzed abstracts for agreement with an unspecified statement of causation or quantification.
The problem is the public interpretation of these “consensus findings”with the previous president and Secretary of State demeaning those that espouse any doubt and refusing to hear any part of it without having 97 statements of their preferred view for every doubter given a voice.
An evangelist appealing to evangelists. Sort of like when they bought themselves a Pope.
And once again, Progressivism – through the tentacles of warmism – corrupts what it touches.
Never fails.
What would I infer if it were shown that Hayhoe were effective in a Church, but not in a Mosque?
That muslims refuse to listen to women?
Now this is science! In a pseudo-scientific kind of way.
In a “progressive” kind of way, too.
What is the current “creed” of a “climate change believer” at this point?
I think Euphonius Bugnuts posted this; I archived it from this blog a while back:
The Anthropocene Creed
I believe in CO2, the Gas Almighty,
Creator of Warming on Earth.
I believe in Climate Models, the only guides, our Lords.
Which are conceived by the Navier-Stokes,
Born to make climate scary
Suffered under climate skeptics
Were crucified by emails, dead and buried;
They descended into Hell;
On the Third Assessment Report they rose again from the dead;
They ascended into policy heaven
And sitteth on the right hand of the Administrator Almighty;
From thence they shall come to judge the emitters and the dead.
I believe in the Hot Spot;
The Holy Scientific Consensus;
The Communion of Experts;
The forgiveness of emissions;
The resurrection of Gaia;
And the Gas Everlasting.
Amen.
The Anthropocene Creed, a confession of faith. pic.twitter.com/xZ4c7bTD90
— Euphonius Bugnuts (@EuphoniusNuts) December 9, 2016
It would be even more effective with puppet strings.
Blech! Some of the people on this forum are letting their true feelings towards religious people shine through. Your opinion of Christians or even religious people is noted and ignored.
Now, lets get down to business. First, Mrs. Hayhoe is Evangelical in only the most modern interpretation. Her husband is Andrew Farley, a pastor in Lubbock, Texas, where Texas Tech is located and they both teach at Tech. The church he pastors is apparently non-denominational and he is an author of multiple books that find fault with churches and ministers who would be defined as more classical Evangelical. His theological views seem to lean towards Evangelical but I would need to read his books to get a better read on his theology and quite frankly, I don’t really get into the negative “old churches are mean” mentality and so would never bother to read his books.
It would appear that Mrs. Hayhoe’s embrace of AGW is more an expression of her education and not her faith, which doesn’t come as a shock since Secularism is much more likely to embrace the primary tenets of AGW than Evangelicalism ever would..
Since true AGW is an expression of Malthusian thought, most modern Evangelicals feel repulsed in regards to the belief system. As a Pentecostal (who is much more conservative than most Evangelicals), I can tell you that Pentecostals reject AGW at an almost 100% rate. Indeed, I have noticed that most Pentecostals tend to be quite capable of using basic logic and critical thinking to point out all the ridiculous holes in AGW and we recognize it is basically just another religion that requires faith. Not only is it a religion but it is a depressing one that provides no real hope.
So, honestly, stop insulting religious people, especially Evangelicals. The reason why the majority percentage of the population in America would be considered skeptical is because we (those Christians you consider ignorant and brainwashed) actually agree with you.
Well said!
“Indeed, I have noticed that most Pentecostals tend to be quite capable of using basic logic and critical thinking to point out all the ridiculous holes in AGW and we recognize it is basically just another religion that requires faith. Not only is it a religion but it is a depressing one that provides no real hope.
So, honestly, stop insulting religious people, especially Evangelicals. The reason why the majority percentage of the population in America would be considered skeptical is because we (those Christians you consider ignorant and brainwashed) actually agree with you.”
This holds true for most Evangelicals of other denominations,too.
I would like to add that most young evangelicals have just come out of a long period of CAGW indoctrination in our public schools. That any can be considered skeptics at all is indicative of the weakness of that argument.
It takes time to unlearn misinformation, perhaps equal to the period of indoctrination.
SR
Andrew,
According to The Conversation article, apparently her husband was one of her first converts.
The “Ravene” of Climate Science
Katharine Hayhoe: Rapper muse.
“The 88 participants who successfully completed a pre- and post treatment survey…”
“Treatment,” eh? Are they propping viewers’ eyes open, ala “Clockwork Orange”?
aka the appeal to authority logical fallacy.
Just to be clear … Evangelicals are really not an hard evidence-demanding group for explanations of the natural world around us. Living your life on faith, (I’m not knocking it, really) means one can be moved from one belief system to another, based on faith and doctrine alone. Christians eventually after much persecution (think, fed to the lions) finally converted the Roman Empire from millennia of mystical gods and goddesses controlling their lives.
So Hayhoe’s hand-wavium of IPCC scripture and invocations of climate model certainty certainly though qualifies as bearing false witness. But she does not understand her scientific sins because undoubtedly she to is wholly immersed in her climate religion.
Joel O’Bryan August 28, 2017 at 9:10 am
Your basic tenet seems to be that people who fall for one belief system will fall for any belief system. Yet, you note early Christian converts were fed to lions. Considering these converts who had been raised under the belief system of the Roman religion were willing to face torture and death rather than recant, Christianity must not be just ANY belief system.
SR
Stevan,
Yes, martyrs do mean that Christianity is just like any other religion or belief system. Most, if not all, have true-believing martyrs willing to sacrifice their lives for their faith, even if it doesn’t, like Isl@m, promise a paradise in the afterlife.
So Christian martyrs don’t show that their religion was in any way special.
Gloateus August 28, 2017 at 7:23 pm
As usual, Gloateus, you find a way to not see the point of what I say. You “missed” that Joel’s point about believers in one faith-based religion being easily recruited to ANY other was the subject of my response, even though I used the word “converts” in 2 of my 3 sentences.
You conflate 2 distinct groups:
1. People who are raised from birth to hate those who don’t believe in their faith, and to especially hate those who leave their faith. The group you mentioned offers monetary as well as “spiritual” rewards for their martyrs. Roman society did the same. Martyrs in these belief systems die for their family and their society.
2. People who were raised under the above system and converted to another belief despite knowing their family will disown them and their society may kill them. Then they accept torture and gruesome death rather than recant their new religion. They did not accept death for sticking with the belief system they were raised under, but for changing to another. (Jewish converts to Christianity also faced threat of death from their society.)
Why would a person, faced with torture and death, not agree to drop their new religion and rejoin their family and their society? If their newly chosen religion was no different than their old, they would have.
So, Gloateus, martyred Christian CONVERTS do show Christianity is special.
SR
Stevan,
They most certainly do not show any such thing.
There are right now converts to Isl@m willing to die for that faith, following those who already have done so.
Nor were many communist martyrs raised Communist.
I didn’t miss any point. It appears that your belief system has blinded you to the obvious reality all around us today and in the past century.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/21/muslim-convert-who-tried-to-blow-up-restaurant-with-nail-bomb-fo/
https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2016/08/12/canada-swat-team-shoots-dead-muslim-convert-suicide-bomber/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-355622/Suicide-bomber-profile-Lindsay-Jamal-married-Muslim-convert.html
That seems to be the attitude of the authors of this “study”–Christians are gullible dunderheads except when they believe the “right” things. Then that means it’s working!
Joel O’Bryan, you said “Evangelicals are really not an hard evidence-demanding group for explanations of the natural world around us.”
That’s actually not true. Hollywood likes to find someone who epitomizes all the stereotypes that certain people have about Christians who professes Jesus and say “look at this stupid idiot living in a fantasy world” but that is not anywhere near the actual reality. Most Christians, especially in today’s exceptionally Secular world, have had to confront their own personal beliefs and have reached well reasoned conclusions for why they continue to profess that faith. Many of us debate scientific dogmas, not because we live in a fantasy world, but because we question the intentions and mindsets of those behind the increasingly secular dogmas.
As a minor point here, Roger Bacon, the “father” of the modern scientific method, was a Franciscan Friar. Sir Isaac Newton, though he rejected the trinity, was a professed Christian. Professions of faith in a religion does not make us (meaning Christians) wild eyed idiots who live in a fantasy world.
Do not confuse the individual (an individual) with group characteristics.
One only needs to look at the support that the Intelligent Design/Creationism has within the Evangelical community as a group.
Intelligent Design is passed-off as “evidence-based” when it is no such thing. It is pure pseudoscience junk wrapped up to look like science. (sound familiar?) This is exactly where Prophet Hayhoe and her fellow travellers use as a jumping off point to the pseudo science of Climate models and their wholly-subjectively tuned projections.
On this topic, I frequently like to think back to Dr. Michael Crichton’s presentation on Climate Change, Religion, and Extraterrestrial Life.
He is utterly devastating to the climate pseudoscience dogma of subjectively tuned climate models, subjectively fudged proxy climate records, and altered climate records all to meet expectations. This is where Hayhoe and her ilk operate while calling themselves scientists.
It is contrary to Protestant doctrine to base Christian belief on anything other than faith. Attempts to “prove” God’s existence, such as by Medieval Catholic Scholastic philosophers, are anathema to Lutherans and Calvinists, if not Anglican, who aren’t really Protestants, just because they reject the authority of the Bishop of Rome.
Injecting religious belief into science is thus not only antiscientific but against Protestant theology. It’s obviously antiscientific because science rightly rejects supernatural explanations for observed phenomena.
Joel is absolutely right about ID, which is nothing but a laughable attempt to sneak creationism into public schools. It’s not only unscientific but antiscientific for the reason given above, and because the preposterous doctrine of “irreducible complexity”, which doesn’t exist, requires supposed scientists to give up on biological inquiry into complex structures.
Creationists are blasphemers, since their false god is not only incompetent, but cruel and deceptive. Besides which, the Protestant God must remain hidden. If He, She or It were to show Itself rationally, then what would be the value of faith?
Modern Catholic doctrine, as opposed to Medieval, might resemble Protestant thought on justification, but I’m unfamiliar with 21st century Roman Catholic theology. My impression however is that justification is still by “works” and not by faith alone. Orthodox Catholicism however agrees with Protestantism on faith, at least in part.
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Justification#Western_v._Eastern_concepts_-_Implications
Gloateus,
You appear to be confusing the protestant belief in justification through faith alone (by grace alone) with the general belief in God. The two are distinctly different and there is no “anathema” to an intellectual inquiry into the existence of a creator. In addition, I would argue that it’s a stretch to condemn creationists as blasphemers, as one’s belief regarding the mechanism of creation is independent of one’s belief regarding salvation from sin (which is the point of a Christian’s belief). In fact, the intra-varsity debate creation debate amongst Christians is largely a distraction from, and unnecessary to, the central tenets of the Christian faith.
Regarding the idea the protestant understanding of God requires Him to be hidden…well, that’s an odd belief that I’m frankly unfamiliar with. I can certainly say that this is not a overtly taught belief that I’ve ever heard of. Certainly there are some teachings from which one might infer that the creator remains hidden in general, but since a protestant takes as canonical the book of Romans, it’s not truly possible to have this belief since it’s clearly stated that “God’s invisible qualities have been clearly seen” directly implying that He is not hidden (yes, yes, I had to look this up).
Anyway, just clarifying your points regarding protestant beliefs.
To the larger point of this post, it’s fairly frustrating to see someone use their religious creds to peddle a dubious “science”…
rip
Rip,
I’m not confusing anything.
Of course a person can believe in a deity without being a Protestant or any other kind of Christian. But Paul in Romans makes plain that it is by faith alone that we are justified.
It should be obvious then that God must remain hidden. If there were rational, physical evidence of His existence, then of what value is faith? That He made the universe (and others if they exist) and intervenes in human history must be believed purely on faith for salvation. In Calvin, even then it isn’t assured, since the Elect are chosen before they are born. Their free wills will make the right choice.
The concept of the hidden God is however not just Protestant. It’s standard in Christian theology, to include Roman Catholicism, as per Aquinas. I’m surprised you’ve never heard of it, if you have studied Christianity. It’s also common in other religions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_otiosus
But its Protestant version comes from Martin Luther via passages in Romans. Luther used Aquinas’ notion of “deus absconditus” to explain the mystery and remoteness of God.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/luther/
Creationism is blasphemy, since it requires telling lies about God, ie that He is an Idiotic Designer, a vile Deceiver and Sadist. Where the man-made Word of God contradicts His Work, it’s idolatry to opt for the Word, ie the grave sin of bibliolatry, worshiping a book rather than God, as revealed in Creation, the observed natural world.
Gloateus,
Thank you for your response. I’ll offer the one additional point that I believe is being missed, and that’s simply: faith in the existence of God is different than faith in Jesus as the savior. I believe that distinction is crucial and is the reason for the mis-characterization of the protestant beliefs. Happy to discuss further, but would suggest that we might be approaching the line where we’ve ceased to offer constructive commentary to the post, and are venturing into no-mans land for WUWT. 🙂
rip
I should add that the concept of God changes over the course of the Old Testament. At first, He appears in human form to Adam and Eve, and walks with Abraham. But later He talks to Moses from fiery vegetation and storm clouds. Then, finally, to see Him is to die.
Hence one reason for the need for Jesus.
ripshin August 28, 2017 at 12:29 pm
I’m happy to leave a judgement on relevance and suitability of theological discussion in these comments up to our esteemed host and moderators.
In Protestantism, belief in the entire Trinity must be based upon faith alone, not just in Christ the Son, but in the Father and Holy Spirit as well.
As Luther said, “To be a Christian, you must tear the eyes out of your reason”. As the Early Church Father Tertullian wrote in De Carne Christi (c. AD 203-06), “It is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd”, ie the story of the Resurrection and the gift of eternal life.
My comments on Protestant theology are not controversial. They are at the core of what it means to be a Protestant, ie justification by faith alone. Anglicans aren’t considered Protestants by Calvinists (and maybe Lutherans, but I don’t know) because they adhere to such Catholic doctrines as apostolic succession, transubstantiation, anointed priesthood (instead of the priesthood of all believers), infant baptism and that not just the Bible (solo scriptura) but accumulated Church theological teaching count as sources of doctrine.
deanfromohio August 28, 2017 at 5:50 pm
ID exists because federal courts have rightly found that creationism is religion, not science, hence quite properly cannot be taught in public schools as science. Comparative religion class is OK, although not too many high schools have those. It is both antiscience and false religion.
That ID was merely old creationist wine dressed up in new, supposedly secular bottles in a crooked attempt to circumvent the Constitution, was hilariously demonstrated in the Dover trial. The ID “text” at issue in that school district had so ineptly copied an older creationist text that its errors plainly showed the derivation.
ID is not science but a backdoor attempt at sneaking false religion into what should be real science classes.
This will be my last comment on the inside baseball of Christian theology. I do feel the subject is relevant to this post, however.
I was pleasantly surprised that Wiki has a well-written and sourced entry on the subject of justification, although it doesn’t mention the Anglican communion in its lead in, just its Evangelical offshoot Methodism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_(theology)#Anglican_.2F_Episcopal
It also fails to discuss whether faith in Jesus’ sacrifice is the same as faith in the existence of God, an issue trenchantly raised in these comments. However, Christian faith requires belief in the Trinity and God’s divinity, in some sense, so IMO there’s really not much of an issue there. Heretical opinions as to the nature of Christ abound, however, to include Newton’s and those of the American Founding Fathers (and Mothers in the case of Abigail Adams, like her husband and other prominent Founders a Deist).
Technically, America isn’t a Christian nation, but a Deist nation. Unless you go by percentage of people who profess a particular religion, in which it is still Christian, adding up all denominations. In another generation, it might not be. But in terms of its founding document, it’s Deist, with a Unitarian Creator, “Nature and Nature’s God”. endowing natural rights. Deism is however a Christian heresy, arising out of Puritanism, as exemplified by the nearly Jewish Newton.
Dean,
Yes, federal judges are most certainly qualified to rule on what constitutes science and religion, hence what is constitutional or not.
The ID advocates from Dover clearly were not so qualified. They were humiliated in court. Their star witness, Behe, who concocted ID and “irreducible complexity” admitted under oath that evolution is a fact. The textbook was copied verbatim from a creationist tract. It was hilarious.
If you think that I have the Bible and Christian theology wrong, please state why. Are you now more qualified to judge that than were Luther and Calvin, founders of Protestant Christianity, and Paul, upon whose letters all Christian theology is based?
Those who are fated to burn eternally are the Satanic liars who preach the false religion of creationism, thus blaspheming God.
Gloateus “Are you now more qualified to judge that than were Luther and Calvin, founders of Protestant Christianity, and Paul, upon whose letters all Christian theology is based?”
Maybe, but it depends on whose judgment actually matters. At the root of Christianity is “Christ” and there’s the only judge that matters. Luther and Calvin, by abandoning the chain of command, had no authority to judge matters of the religion they abandoned; yet as founders of their own, are perfectly qualified to judge that which they have created. Jesus/God is perfectly capable of establishing as many prophets, apostles and so on as are wanted at any time of Earth’s history.
So it is that I am the authority of my beliefs, and you are the authority of your beliefs.
Michael,
We only know Jesus’ words as reported in the Gospels.
The religion of Christianity has a theology based upon Paul’s take on Christ. If not, then what’s the point of the NT after the four gospels?
The founders of Protestantism rebelled against a Church which they felt no longer reflected either the words of Christ or Paul. They had the biblical text to make their case, in both testaments.
Since Roman and Orthodox Catholic Church doctrines embraces evolution, most creationists are Protestant. Hence, they are heretics and blasphemers of God, since their false doctrine requires that He be deceptive, making the universe appear 13.7 billion years old instead of 6000; cruel, for creating such monsters as ichneumon wasps, the larvae of which eat their prey alive from the inside out, and for allowing babies to be born only to suffer horribly, then die, and incompetent, for creating such defective organisms when much better design features would obviously be available.
Gloateus writes “We only know Jesus’ words as reported in the Gospels.”
There is no we. Your gifts or limitations are not my gifts or limitations.
“The religion of Christianity has a theology based upon Paul’s take on Christ. If not, then what’s the point of the NT after the four gospels?”
The same as any of the writings issued by any of the major religions (or even minor ones) to this very day: Managing a church.
Paul was chosen after Jesus’ resurrection; and he was chosen by God and Jesus. Is there any reason to believe God and Jesus cannot choose new apostles; speak to whoever they choose?
“their false doctrine requires that He be deceptive, making the universe appear 13.7 billion years old instead of 6000”
I have similar thoughts about such things. One thing I take on faith since I have no proof is a truth principle of God and the Universe; if a thing seems to be 13 billion years old by all tests we can muster, then it probably is exactly so. If life seems to have evolved, then it is nearly certain that it did so; in fact, it must be so or there is no truth principle, and if there is no truth principle then “all bets are off”; I might have been created three minutes ago complete with memory of the past day’s conversations.
Mr. O’Bryan’s waters, rather than clear, appear a bit murky in my view.
I, for one, demand only the best evidence for those issues related to science, e.g., climate related issues. This is exactly why I deny the arguments regarding AGW. For those things science is ill equipped to address (i.e., whether or not God exists), then I choose to believe what I believe by faith.
Moreover:
“Living your life on faith…means one can be moved from one belief system to another, based on faith and doctrine alone”.
Doesn’t this argument contradict itself in it’s premise? E.g., if I’ve built a belief system on faith alone, requiring no evidence, for what reason would I ever move from my belief system to another?
No. One merely needs to look at the phenomenon of cults and their intersection with religious beliefs. The Mormon church is frequently referred to as a cult even by other Christians. THE LDS church is Christianity no question, but tack on a few more beliefs. Merely a system of control and power for the leaders, in my view.
Climatism-environmentalism (and its underlying alarmism) is merely seeking to be a system of controls and power for the ruling class.
Pathological manifestations of cults can be sene and studied in the JimJones-Guyana tragedy.
What if incontrovertible physical evidence emerged showing your purely faith-based belief to be objectively, demonstrably false?
And why couldn’t a faith-based belief be abandoned in favor of another such belief? It happens all the time in genuine, not forced, conversion experiences.
joelobryan August 28, 2017 at 11:01 am
I cannot understand your explanation of your point. You seem to be saying cults are pathological versions of religious beliefs. Is your point: If cults are bad, Christianity must be bad?
Do you believe that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea proves democracy is a bad idea?
SR
Gloateus August 28, 2017 at 11:10 am
What if incontrovertible physical evidence emerged showing your purely faith-based belief to be objectively, demonstrably false?
What of CLAIMS of incontrovertible evidence against faith-based belief that have been proved to be objectively, demonstrably false? Do they prove atheists aren’t interested in truth?
P.S. Christianity is not PURELY faith based. The faith is that God will continue to be the God he has already shown Himself to be.
SR
Stevan Reddish August 28, 2017 at 12:15 pm
I don’t know to which supposed false claims of incontrovertible evidence against faith-based belief you refer.
You’re entitled to your opinion about your religious belief, but it happens to differ from those of Martin Luther and John Calvin, the founders of Protestantism, and with the words of Apostle Paul in his Letter to the Romans, which is definitely by him, unlike so many of the other alleged epistles in the NT attributed to him. So whatever you may call your religion, it isn’t Protestant Christianity.
@Gloateus
“What if incontrovertible physical evidence emerged showing your purely faith-based belief to be objectively, demonstrably false?”
Then you aren’t moving from one faith-based belief system to another faith-based belief system. You’re moving from a faith-based belief system to an evidence-based belief system.
Such was not Mr. O’ Bryan’s premise.
“And why couldn’t a faith-based belief be abandoned in favor of another such belief? It happens all the time in genuine, not forced, conversion experiences.
Then it would seem you’ve again moved from a faith-based belief system to an evidence-based belief system, in that your conversion experience would be counted by you as empirical evidence of it’s veracity.
Such was not Mr. O’ Bryan’s premise.
sy computing August 28, 2017 at 12:26 pm
Nope.
If evidence “prove” your prior belief wrong, but you adopt another equally devoid of evidence, then you’ve moved to another faith-based system.
A conversion experience could be based upon a manifestation, which could be considered “evidence”, such as Paul’s on the road to Damascus, but also could simply result from a change of heart. You might decide that you prefer faith-based Isl@m to faith-based Zoroastrianism, as so many did in 7th century Persia (along with those forced to convert), in the total absence of evidence. Unless you consider the Arab conquest of an ancient civilization weakened by war and internal strife to be evidence.
@Gloateus
“If evidence “prove” your prior belief wrong, but you adopt another equally devoid of evidence, then you’ve moved to another faith-based system.”
But according to you this was true:
“What if incontrovertible physical evidence emerged showing your purely faith-based belief to be objectively, demonstrably false?”
How can “incontrovertible physical evidence” be that and “equally devoid of evidence” at the same time? It would appear a contradiction is derivable from your argument.
“You might decide that you prefer faith-based Isl@m to faith-based Zoroastrianism, as so many did in 7th century Persia (along with those forced to convert), in the total absence of evidence. Unless you consider the Arab conquest of an ancient civilization weakened by war and internal strife to be evidence.”
Have you built a Straw Man? Is the set of all “preferences” now to be included with the set of all “genuine conversions”?
I deny the premise.
Furthermore, are you sure that you, a believer of neither the Islamic nor Zorastrian faiths, are able to declare to those who are that they believe what they do in a “total absence of evidence”?
sy computing August 28, 2017 at 12:56 pm
Dunno why this is so hard. Can you really not imagine a person who has held a totally faith-based belief switching to a different faith-based belief, without any physical evidence in either case?
No straw man. Should be clear that my examples were hypothetical. I don’t need to know whether any one believer thinks that he or she has evidence for his faith, just that it is undeniably theoretically possible for a person to convert from one purely faith-based belief to another blind faith belief.
I’m surprised that you seem to believe that such a conversion isn’t possible and has never in fact occurred.
Stevan,
Your NKorea question on the semantics of a name is an absurd attempt at distraction.
My Mormon Church analogy is apt to what Hayhoe likely envisions for where she would like Evangelical Christianity to move in embracing climate alarmism, sans the hard evidence.
Joseph Smith, the LDS Founder took restorative protestantism and melding it to his claimed visions of meeting with Jesus and God. The Mormons have their own unique books, the Book of Mormon, of which there are 15 books. Smith is referred to as a Prophet in the Mormon Church. His earthly reward was having 40 wives to procreate with.
Evangelical climate prophet Hayhoe is melding evangelical protestantism with her and the climate-environmental pseudoscience. She has 3 Books of Climate Change to refer to, now in its fifth revision as the basis for climate alarmism scripture. (The IPCC ARs: I thru V, in 3 book reports, the WG1, WG2, WG3 Reports). Hayhoe’s earthly rewards are fat NSF support grants on the climate gravy train.
@Gloateus
“Dunno why this is so hard.”
Uh oh! Did I detect a bit of ad hominem added to your shaker of salt? Just kidding around with you Gloateus. 🙂
“Can you really not imagine a person who has held a totally faith-based belief switching to a different faith-based belief, without any physical evidence in either case?”
In my view, “imagining” this or that is for topics dealing with imagination, not reality. Mr. O’ Bryan appeared to be arguing that the reality of the psychological condition of evangelicals was such and so in the real world. I responded with an objection to that argument…and I suspect the objection is quite valid.
For example, my case:
Without any evidence to the contrary, it would appear to be totally irrational that I, as a mature, thinking, individual should suddenly tear down my entire belief system I’ve spent not a few years carefully building, reviewing, testing and revising, in favor of another simply on the basis of faith alone. This was Mr. O’ Bryan’s original premise.
I don’t like believing irrational things. It bothers me and I make every effort to avoid the same. Hence, I suspect such a thing would only happen were I to have an experience similar to that of Saul, i.e., seeing Christ on the road to Damascus. But in that case, (i.e., Saul and his experience) I have not abandoned my previous belief system on the basis of faith, I have abandoned it on the basis of undeniable evidence and therefore, Mr. O’ Bryan’s premise is proved false.
“No straw man. Should be clear that my examples were hypothetical. I don’t need to know whether any one believer thinks that he or she has evidence for his faith, just that it is undeniably theoretically possible for a person to convert from one purely faith-based belief to another blind faith belief. ”
For your “hypothetical” examples you appeared to use real-world history??? Which is it? Real or imaginary?
In the real world I would argue that you do need to know what the believer has experienced, else you don’t have an argument valid in the real world. Or if you do, the argument is suspicious and worthy of objection. In fact, the truth of the matter as to the reality of the conversion of the believer would appear to be critical to the premise Mr. O’ Bryan proposed and you are defending.
joelobryan August 28, 2017 at 1:48 pm
I absolutely agree that NKorea is democratic in name only. That is its relevance to your points about the LDS church. At this time the LDS church is Christian in name only. It is the current doctrine that causes Christians to label it as a cult.
The doctrine presented within The Book of Mormon was indeed mostly orthodox Christian doctrine. Its doctrine was never the point of objection. (Smith left Ohio not fleeing religious persecution, but fleeing a warrant for bank fraud.) However, Joseph Smith soon modified his doctrine away from othodoxy. His claim that God is a glorified man, and thus men can become gods, is perhaps the ultimate example of why the LDS church became known as a cult.
When comparing/contrasting between faith based religions today, the abandoned doctrine of the Book of Mormon is irrelevant.
SR
Gloateus August 28, 2017 at 12:25 pm
“I don’t know to which supposed false claims of incontrovertible evidence against faith-based belief you refer.”
Gloateus, you weren’t aware that Ernst Haeckel’s theory that “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”, backed by fraudulent drawings of fetuses, was presented as proof positive that natural evolution, not God, is the source of life on Earth? 1 example of many.
Since you do not reference any verses within “the words of Apostle Paul in his Letter to the Romans” I cannot tell what your point was. Perhaps you misunderstood my point. Just in case, my point for “Christianity is not PURELY faith based.” was that we are not expected to believe in God solely by faith without evidence. God is very willing to present evidence for our consideration:
John 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.”
SR
Why are my responses in moderation when the posts I am responding to are in plain sight? Please at least attach a reason to the notice “Your comment is awaiting moderation.”.
SR
Stevan Reddish August 28, 2017 at 3:45 pm
Haeckel’s drawings of embryos (not fetuses) were not exact, but ontogeny does indeed recapitulate phylogeny and evolution is a fact. Embryos do grow and then resorb ancestral structures, such as teeth in birds and tails in apes. Sometimes the process goes awry and humans and other apes are born with tails. To cite but two of countless examples.
Sorry about not citing chapter and verse. I thought that as a Bible-believing Christian, you’d be familiar with the relevant passages:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+3%3A21-28&version=NASB
http://biblehub.com/romans/5-1.htm
They are at the core of Protestantism.
Gloateus August 28, 2017 at 6:36 pm
“Sorry about not citing chapter and verse. I thought that as a Bible-believing Christian, you’d be familiar with the relevant passages:”
It is because I am familiar with the relevant passages that I had to ask which scripture you were thinking supported your response of: ” whatever you may call your religion, it isn’t Protestant Christianity.” to my statements of: “Christianity is not PURELY faith based. The faith is that God will continue to be the God he has already shown Himself to be.” and ” we are not expected to believe in God solely by faith without evidence.”
You cite Romans 3:21-28, and Rom. 5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
as proof that Christianity IS purely faith based, without any expectation of evidence or reason.
Gloateus, please note the “therefore” in Rom. 5:1. I think Paul is referencing his preceding discussion about Abraham:
Romans 4:20 (NIV) Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God,
21 being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised.
I think Rom.4:20,21 confirms my position on the faith being discussed, not yours. I agree with:
ripshin August 28, 2017 at 11:52 am
“Gloateus,
You appear to be confusing the protestant belief in justification through faith alone (by grace alone) with the general belief in God. The two are distinctly different and there is no “anathema” to an intellectual inquiry into the existence of a creator.”
SR
My thanks to the moderator(s) for allowing this thread on whether Evangelicals are motivated by evidence and reason or simply blind faith.
SR
[snip -getting wildly off topic -mod]
After a friend heard Hayhoe in person and became convinced of CAGW, I watched 7 of Hahoe’s videos. Hayhoe is a skilled, convincing presenter to “evangelical” audiences. She starts by establishing her credentials as a sincere, warm, engaging Christian. Then she carefully and skillfully establishes the authority of science and her credentials as a scientist. She states that “global warming is not a matter of belief—it is about applying our understanding of science to the climate of this planet. The author of Hebrews tells us, ‘faith is … the evidence of things not seen.’ We believe in God through faith. Science, on the other hand, is the evidence of our eyes.” Implication: we are now on the rock solid ground of science, and since she is a scientist you can trust her. She goes on to point out that not only are we working with science, it’s all about physics, the hard core science so there is a double lock on securing truth.
The stage is now set for her presentation. She has her audience in the palm of her hand. Presenting as an evangelical disarms her listeners. They can relax and turn off their critical faculties. Add to that the cloak of science and you can now believe with confidence whatever she tells you. She is going to present the facts and truth about GW since it is all based on science.
Given her emphasis on science, there is a surprising lack of real data in her presentations. For example, she states that GW is increasing the strength of hurricanes without providing any scientific evidence. No graphs showing increasing strength. Instead, she shows dramatic pictures of hurricanes in action…so we take her word for the increasing strength without any data offered to back up the assertion. We are drawn into the story about the plight of the polar bears and disappearing sea ice with pictures. No data, no graphs. No reference to the fact that the population of polar bears has been stable since 1980.
Have any lingering doubts about her position? She highly recommends John Cook’s website. “Don’t take my word for it, go to this website” (scepticalscience.com) as if she is referring you onto an independent source (Cook and Hayhoe have done research together). She notes that the “founder is a fellow believer…” Implication—you can trust everything you see there.
The final plank in her presentation is perhaps the most powerful and troubling of all. If you are still uncertain about the true status of GW, she pulls out her trump card and a slide appears on the screen: “Based on the evidence, about 97% of climate scientists agree that human caused climate change is happening.” The argument from consensus is a powerful means of persuasion for the under informed.
In some of her presentations she will present a slide that shows a bridge with the caption: “97% of engineers agree the bridge ahead will collapse. 3% say not to worry. Would you keep driving?” (Implication: No, that would likely be catastrophic.) The bottom half of the slide states: “We listen to experts. So when 97% of climate scientists agree man-made climate change is real—it’s time to listen.” (Implication: absolutely; not to do so would be catastrophic.) The audience is swept along and fails to see that the 97% quote on AGW has nothing to do with CAGW and of course they are completely unaware that the statistic is fraudulent on several levels.
Hayhoe uses the 97% statistic to justify her refusal to enter into debate with scientists who hold a different view of CAGW. In her keynote address at the Citizens’ Climate Lobby 2015 conference, she explained that to enter into a debate with the other side would give the impression that there is a 50/50 divide in the science when in fact, it is 97% in favor of her position. She takes the high road; she says it would be “morally wrong to engage in a 50/50 debate. Because, I, essentially would be tacitly communicating a lie.” It also effectively protects her from having to defend her position and the 97% statistic against a qualified scientist equipped to present the other side. She points out that one reason the public is so divided on this issue is that “We are being lied to” by a small group of high level scientists who are engaged in a “Climate Cover-up,” in a “Crusade to Deny Global Warming.”
After explaining to my friend why the 97% statistic was meaningless, his support for CAGW melted away.
See how powerful, effective and useful the “97 percent” lie is. It shuts down conversations.
That’s why this lie should be debunked at every opportunity. The real consensus from Cook’s study was 1.6 percent, not 97 percent. If Hayhoe said 1.6 percent of scientists believed humans were causing the climate to change, the listeners would not be very impressed or swayed, would they.
That’s why people like Hayhoe lie and claim it is 97 percent. And she is a liar. She, as much as anyone, knows how those figures were derived. She knows they are f@udulent. It’s not nice to lie to Evangelicals, or anyone else, for that matter. You may run into a problem at the Pearly Gates.
In one of her videos, Hayhoe reports that if you have only 10 seconds with someone, the one thing that will convince them of the seriousness of CC is to tell them that there is a consensus among scientists.
The 97% statistic was the clincher for my friend to win him over to the alarmist position. I wrote a short paper on Cook’s study showing how the 97% statistic was an artifact of his flawed methodology and analysis. While the alarmists like to use this statistic to support their cause, a careful reading of Cook’s article reveals that the 97% statistic has nothing to do with a consensus on how dangerous or how urgent GW is. The view that humans contribute to CC seems to be supported by most skeptics.
Even if the 97% statistic that “humans contribute to GW” was valid and based on sound research, it would be irrelevant to the real debate on GW. Not being a climate scientist and having only seriously studied this area for the last 18 months, it seems to me that the real debate centers around 1) The degree to which human activity contributes to GW; 2) The mechanisms that might be responsible for AGW; 3) Whether or not AGW will be catastrophic; and 4) Can we do anything to reverse the climate forecast of the models. As far as I know, there is little consensus around these issues.
After walking my friend through the problems surrounding the 97% statistic and pointing out the lack of evidence supporting the CAGW theory, that position lost its credibility with him.
Chris, That’s a nice summary of all of Hayhoe’s trickery. The climate priesthood is desperately either ignoring data (lack of increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones) or using Appeal to Authority arguments.
She is a pseudoscientist and needs to be understood as such. The best way to view her is she is a merely a Sunday morning preacher giving sermons on climate salvation and referring to the IPCC climate scriptures..
Good summary. Can I revise Ms Hayhoe’s bridge analogy?
“97% of bridge scientists say this bridge will catastrophically collapse in a few years because humans keep driving on it. This is based on 100+ complex models of bridges. Would you drive over this bridge?” (P.S getting to the other side of the bridge on a daily basis is essential for most of human civilisation)
Then people drive over it anyway, and it doesn’t collapse. Decades later, it still hasn’t collapsed and doesn’t look like it ever will.
Would you still trust those Climate bridge engineers?*
*You later find out it’s not even 97%, and most of those people never mentioned bridges
The engineers ran models which say it collapsed years ago! But there it is!
>>
“97% of engineers agree the bridge ahead will collapse. 3% say not to worry. Would you keep driving?”
<<
It depends on what kind of engineers: bio-engineers–probably yes; civil engineers–maybe not. But in hindsight, I would still like to see their data and models and see if their concern was justified.
Jim
Cult brainwashing techniques are effective on the weak minded? Whodathunk!
Using a warmist technique to make your point? How adorable……
I’ve considered myself to be an “evangelical”, so I’m not sure what the definition here is. I’m also a licensed Geologist in my state, and I consider the “biblical” creation to be more of an allegory than a ‘literal’ story. Parts of the Bible are literal, and other parts are illustrative of a concept (” … our God is a consuming fire … ” would literally mean that He is a blast furnace, or something … ). I consider the Geological Time Scale to be a valid interpretation of what the Earth has been through.
I do not know Ms. Hayhoe’s affiliation, or her beliefs, but if she has transformed humans into gods, who can create and control climate, then she is NOT an ‘evangelical’; she is a humanist and a masquerade of what she proclaims.
My opinion, of course,
Regards to all,
Vlad
The Bible contains some historical material, with spin of course, from about 800 BC. Before that, it’s mythical, then legendary. But, as you say, it’s possible to infer allegorical meaning from myths and legends.
There is however, no actual science in the Bible, no matter how hard one tries to torture, twist and turn the text. Indeed, it’s false religion as well as junk science to try to tease modern science out of biblical passages. And that’s how it has to be, for faith-based theology to work, as noted above.
Augustine of Hippo and even John Calvin himself understood this.
Gloateus August 28, 2017 at 12:00 pm
“There is however, no actual science in the Bible”…
Are you sure about that? What about these:
Job 26:7 (ESV) He stretches out the north over the void
and hangs the earth on nothing.
Note the lack of elephants and turtles.
Job 26:10 (ESV) He has inscribed a circle on the face of the waters
at the boundary between light and darkness.
This describes the arch of the Earth’s sunrise/sunset line, now known as the terminator, as seen from space. For the edge of shadow to be a circle requires the Earth to be a sphere.
Isaiah 40:22 (ESV) It is he who sits above the circle of the earth,
and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers;
who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;
The Earth is a sphere suspended in space, and the universe is expanding. Sounds like science to me!
Isaiah lived 200 years before Pythagorus and 2600 years before Hubble. Job lived MUCH earlier.Their only source of this scientific knowledge was God.
There is much more science in the Bible but these 3 examples are plenty when only 1 is needed.
SR
Stevan,
Yes, I am positive that there is no science in the Bible. It is entirely a pre-scientific collection of documents. Even the NT, which is a little surprising, given the long Hellenistic cultural period in the Holy Land, during which local people were exposed to pagan science.
In the Bible, Earth is a flat disk or rectangle under a solid dome, surrounded by water, as per Genesis 1, not a sphere suspended in the near vacuum of space. Yet the Temptation of Christ, from which He and the devil could see all the kingdoms of the earth from a high place, clearly shows that gospel writers envisioned an earth as flat as in the OT.
The passage you cite in Job was mysterious until the discovery of the Ugaritic texts. When Alexandrine Jews translated the OT into Greek, the word “zaphon” had come to mean “north”. But in ancient Hebrew it referred to Mt. Zaphon, at the northern end of the Levantine coast, which was the abode of he Canannite storm god Baal Zaphon. What the passage actually says is, “God stretches out Mount Zaphon over the desolate deep, and fixes the earth upon the surface of the waters”.
Job 26:10 does not mean what you have wrongly interpreted it to say. Its correct translation is, “He marks out the horizon on the face of the waters for a boundary between light and darkness” (NIV, 2017). Compare with Genesis 1:4. That people observed night and day in the western and eastern skies doesn’t mean they understood that earth is a sphere.
Ancient Hebrew had a word for “ball”, and it’s never used to describe earth. Elsewhere in the Bible, the word mistranslated as “circle” is given as “circuit”. In this usage, we have God sitting on the edge of the earth, looking down at people who appear to Him as insects. Even if you mistranslate it as “circle”, then you have a flat disk instead of a sphere. But elsewhere in the Bible, earth has corners, so is rectangular rather than spherical.
http://www.crivoice.org/circle.html
Thus, “the Hebrew word…used in Isaiah 44:22 (חוּג, chug) does not at all imply a spherical earth. The root word only occurs in the Hebrew Bible once as a verb (Job 26:10). In nominal forms, the same root occurs four times, three as the noun חוּג (chug; Job 22:14, Prov 8:27, Isa 40:22), and once as the noun מְחוּגׇה (mechugah; Isa 44:13). This term refers to a “circle instrument,” a device used to make a circle, what we call a compass.”
The unphysicality of the “stretching out the heavens like a tent” passage prompted to Augustine to write “On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis”, in which he argued that in order to help propagate the faith among educated pagans, Christians should accept that the earth is spherical and not flat, covered by a solid “vault of heaven”, upon which an anthropomorphic God walks, operating the levers of the storehouses of the rain and snow.
Sorry, but it’s simply ludicrous to imagine that stretching out a tent is comparable to the expanding universe. The Bible makes clear that earth is flat, covered by a solid dome, from which hang stars, in danger of falling to earth, that the sun crosses the earth under the dome, then “hurries to the place of his rising”, and that Joshua stopped both the sun and moon in their paths across the vault of heaven. This earth is immobile, supported by pillars, with waters below, above and around it.
The waters above the vault of heaven (firmament) were too much even for John Calvin, who concluded that the Bible was written for uneducated people. Yet today creationists call themselves “Calvinists”.
It is impossible to read modern astronomy into ancient Near Eastern cosmology, and dishonest and blasphemous even to try.
[snip -getting wildly off topic -mod]
Mods:
Sorry. Mistyped my email address here and in previous comment.
My bad.
Left out the underscore.
Gloateus, you seem to be dancing around what I present, looking for a way to misunderstand.
example:
Isaiah 40:22(NIV) He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
You say “Sorry, but it’s simply ludicrous to imagine that stretching out a tent is comparable to the expanding universe.” and base this on statements of St. Augustine, who was unaware that the universe is expanding.
I don’t think the text says the heavens are comparable to a tent, but that God stretches out the heavens in the same way that a tent must be stretched out before entering – that is, from a very small volume to a much larger volume. It is the act of stretching that is comparable, not the thing being stretched.
Also, NIV, which you reference, uses the words “He sits enthroned above the circle of the Earth”, not “sitting on the edge of the earth” Most translations use “above” and the “circle of the Earth”. Surely, you can see that statements of “people as grasshoppers” and “circle of the Earth” are references to the point of view of the Earth – extreme height, as in from space. I think you must not want to understand. That makes further discussion pointless.
SR
Stevan Reddish August 28, 2017 at 5:54 pm
What part of “tent” do you not get?
In biblical cosmology, the flat earth is covered by a solid vault of various construction, depending upon the passage. In Genesis 1, it’s a firmament, a hard dome hammered out by God himself. The Hebrew word is “raqiya”, an onomatopoetic word similar to English “racket”, ie the sound made by hammering.
In the passage you cite, however, the covering over the earth is likened to a tent. The key word is tent, not the manner in which it is set up.
Nowhere in the Bible is the earth a sphere, as I’ve already said. The Hebrew word which you mistranslate as “circle” doesn’t mean a sphere of even a circle. As noted, elsewhere in the KJV, it’s translated as “circuit”. But its literal meaning is a compass, a device for drawing a circuit or circle.
The plain text meaning of the Bible is unavoidable. It’s the standard Near Eastern cosmology, as detailed in the Book of Enoch, which was so popular with Jesus’ sect the Essenes, but mostly kept out of the Masoretic text because Enoch ascended to heaven as did Jesus.
It’s all right there in Genesis 1, which of course differs irreconcilably with the competing creation myth in Genesis 2. The book begins with a divine wind moving across the preexisting waters. There are water molecules in space, but they are ice, not liquid. Dry land emerges from the waters, which are around, above and below the earth, which elsewhere we learn is immobile and supported by pillars. A solid firmament, the vault of heaven covers the earth like a dome. Night, day and plants are created before the sun, moon and stars.
The sun and moon pass over the earth, entering through doors in the dome. The stars hang from the dome. There are openings in the dome from which God personally sends down precipitation from storehouses. He personally laid the foundations of the immobile earth. I could go on. But the point is that in no way does any of this or other biblical myths, adapted from other Near Eastern cultures, even remotely correspond to physical reality.
There is no science in the Bible and attempts to try to interpret modern science out of it are simply wrong, in theology as well as science.
What, you mean to say that, after setting up a tent, you don’t spend the next 13.7 billion years stretching it to expand it at ever accelerating speed?
That’s what I do.
Not!
I’m a Christian, am I an evangelical? I guess. But I have trouble listening to sermons at church or on the radio because they say things that need correction but of course that never happens. Not Bible facts, I don’t dispute those things, but when they stray into other areas to give us analogies or try to develop logic for what they are saying I am frequently turned off by the fact that the speaker goes on without anyone pointing out the errors in what they are saying. I am an engineer, I am involved in discussions almost everyday where everyone has a voice. Everyone questions what everyone else is saying, for clarity and peer reviewing to vett the information being presented or discussed. So I have difficulty just listening to one person talk on without anyone questioning anything they say. And this drives my wife crazy, that I can’t just listen silently.
As a true evangelical you would have to get used to this process, listening without being able to question anything, and accepting what is being said as true. So it does not surprise me that anyone else who speaks to an evangelical audience through the same type of lecture format, such as a tape recording, would have a good percentage of listeners believe what is being said, because listening and accepting is what evangelicals do.
Um…no. Disagree. Respectfully listen, yes. Consider the point, yes. But do you honestly think your the only one with questions?
I’m with Andrew on this. My wife is driven crazy by me not being able to sit silently through a silly movie (Do cars really fly into the air and burst into flames whenever they collide with something?), so I understand Steve Thayer’s issue. I think most people listening to a sermon are persuaded by the Scripture presented. They know humans are prone to error.
SR
Yikes, man, humans wrote the scriptures. Humans interpret them.
How different is that from a movie script?
Another green doing a study on how to convert the unchurched. Anyone using Cook’s 97% meme except as an example of how to lie with statistics is a zealot or ignorant.
Effective speakers can convince people of stuff?
What a break through!
How does she do in open debate?
“Awareness of the expert scientific consensus increased among 27% of participants.”
Becoming “aware” of something does not mean you agree with it.
I’m sure Hayhoe’s lecture did not make them aware of the background behind the so-called 97% consensus. Once someone becomes aware of the unscientific methods used to derive the bogus “expert scientific consensus,” it erodes trust in global-warming propaganda instead of increasing it.
The Hayseed whisperer. She’s found the hook that every good tent preacher knows (and every con man).
Yes. Jesus put it rather well: Matthew 7:21 – “… Not everyone saying to Me, ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens …”
It takes most Christians a while to understand that churches are not immune to con artists, crooks and now it seems, even climate snake-oil sales executives. The audience was presumably quite young.
Hayhoe “Texas is in permanent drought because of AGW”
Hayhoe “Texas is getting much more rain because of AGW”
That lady is sooo not self aware
Or she is and doesn’t care, since she’s lying for her religion.
just a quick reminder
Our intrepid friend and polar explorer Rupert Nigel Pendrill Hadow known as Pen Hadow has reached 80N and appears to have hit the ice pack
http://www.arcticmission.com/follow-arctic-mission/
(zoom in at the end of the blue trajectory)
surprise surprise. Propaganda Works!
It’s time for the Moonies and Scientology to open up climate change branches.
I don’t remember either the Moonies or Scientology ever caring about what was politically correct. That would be the only reason for them to do so.
I was thinking of the money side.
That would apply to ALL religions, most businesses, and most universities. Seems everyone loves free money.
I find the title “evangelical climate scientist” to be spot on and perfectly applicable to believers the world over. Thank you Guardian for calling ’em like I see ’em!
Wonderful trifecta of wrongness: religion, peer review and college students.
Without any reference to this lady’s character, I believe she is caught up in the “snake oil” scheme of blaming all weather occurrences on human “interference” in the “natural” ecology. Unfortunately she is no different than the Pope and his council. They are all fooled in by the notion that man can reconcile himself with God through austerity and self-denial. Then god will “correct” the climate and return the earth to the “garden of Eden” it was before the evil capitalists began raping mother Gaia.
(In whatever climate your favorite proxies might indicate, Dr Mann. Feel free to mix and match.)
I don’t remember any Bible lessons in that direction. The closest would be the Jehovah Witnesses, who are very into looking at end times. They probably qualify. However, in their version, God does not “correct” the climate, he remakes the earth, allowing people to live there for 1000 years in harmony. I suppose that’s close enough.
Pardon me for saying, but the JWs were not even in the scope of my remark. I was trying to sarcastically point out the ideology behind current climate change policy.
“Evangelical Christian”? As a Christian myself, may I suggest that she spend more time in the Gospel (good news) of Christ rather than the gospel of crisis?
She might learn something.
But not nearly as lucrative as spreading CACA.
Maybe she’s just stuck on St. James?
Certainly not a scholar of St. Paul…
Mods, I just made a comment that disappeared Not even in “moderation”.
Did I say a “bad word”?
OOPs! There it is.
Probably a “timing thing” on my end.
I find that happens when my internet connection gets wonky (it blinks out frequently and then pops back). If I hit enter as the connection is lost, the comment gets lost with the connection. Trying again a bit later generally helps.
I am somewhat curious why the study looked at how to convert Evangelical Christians. All the research and polling I have found shows atheists and skeptics (other than those of climate change, of course) have much higher percentages of believers. Religious people are not nearly as gullible as these other groups.
You actually have a study showing that Evangelical Christians are more CACA-skeptical than atheists?
Wow. I’d like to see that, please. Thanks!
Among scientists, it’s true that Spencer and Chrisy are Evangelicals, but the big name skeptics are just as atheistic and agnostic as any other group of 21st century scientists.
@Gloateus
Well there’s the whole point of the Hayhoe project, which appears to be:
“ABSTRACT
Despite an overwhelming scientific consensus, a significant proportion of the American public continues to reject anthropogenic climate change. This disparity is particularly evident among evangelical Christians, for whom theological conservatism, general scientific skepticism, political affiliations, and sociocultural influences may impede their acceptance of human-caused climate change.”
http://www.nagt-jge.org/doi/abs/10.5408/16-220.1?code=gete-site
And here’s something of a survey from 2014:
“Religiosity
Oddly enough, climate change has also become a religious issue in the past decade. Could a person’s religiosity affect whether they accept that global climate change is occurring?
Sure enough, we see the same trend as with political affiliation: The more religious a person is, the more likely they are to deny climate change. Whereas 80% of atheists accept climate change, only 56% of all very religious Americans agree.”
http://www.randalolson.com/2014/09/13/who-are-the-climate-change-deniers/
And this study from 2015:
“Results
Our results show that members of Judeo-Christian traditions are less concerned about environmental protection than their nonreligious peers, and that religiosity somewhat intensifies these relationships for evangelical Protestants, Catholics, and mainline Protestants.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ssqu.12213/abstract
Whether or not any of this is true, well…”they” said it was anyway.
I left the ELCA Lutheran church because they went lock stock and barrel behind the Pope and the ideology of human infestation and ruination of the planet. I have seen much ecological improvement in my 60 years and do not consider CO2 to be a pollutant of the global ecosystem. They say we are trashing the planet with our middle-class values while I see people around me being ecologically responsible, for the most part. When will religious organizations become cognizant of reality?
Speaking of the ELCA and its fellow traveling ilk, KH is a prime example of an apostle of the Church of the Left, which has become our new established state religion:
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-lefts-values-are-our-state-church.html
How’s all your daughter’s falsified drought predictions working out for ya Hey Ho.
Hayhoe, the rain can go
Harder than you’ll ever know,
Better yet, the winds might blow
To dash your tropic dreams
Yes, before residing there
You’d prob’ly better be aware
That drought is only flooding’s dare
seeing history’s extremes.
Pray the skepticism away
What Would Jesus Deny?
He might get a laugh from the notion that humans have accidentally been the gods of climate, don’t you think so?
Evangelicals believe that God promised that He would never again destroy the earth with a Noachian Flood, and signified that promise with a rainbow. It would be quite capricious of God to then allow man to destroy the earth with CO2-induced, run-away heat.
[Capricious perhaps, but “legal” in the words of the Promise. Stellar heatup will, at some time, always happen. .mod]
Physics does not support your thermodynamics until the sun becomes a red giant. Don’t forget that when satan quoted scripture out of context in the wilderness with jesus, he was rebuked.
The idea that God would trick man into destroying himself is delicious to you, but God has stated that the heavens and the earth will pass away. How will mankind accomplish that feat?
deanfromohio: You missed the two qualifiers: destroyed by man & CO2-induced.
Mod: Regarding the sun eventually destroying the earth: According to Revelation 22:5, there will be no sun for the new earth since the presence of God will be the light.
Even the NAS views science and religion as compatible:
http://www.nas.edu/evolution/Compatibility.html
If there is an all knowing being, then surely he/she/it would be the greatest scientist to ever exist, after all, to be able to manipulate elements, one must first know and understand them perfectly.
To think that such a being cannot exist because one cannot wrap one’s feeble human brain around the idea, or understand the ways of such a being, is just to make one’s own human knowledge the “God” instead. It is the arrogant feebleness of human intellect that tries to create a “God” so capricious, so flawed, so easily refuted that his/her mind can rest at ease for ignoring, mocking such a creature.
I truly pity those whose cognitive biases create the inability to imagine anyone, or anything greater than themselves.
God is the figment of the human imagination.
Dean, you confuse the thread. Who do you agree with?
I’m pretty sure that the wildly successful, productive, ethical atheists of planet earth laugh at your pathetic pity.
Of course science and religion are compatible. Many scientists are believers of one kind or another. But that doesn’t mean you can mix them, especially by trying to find science in the Bible, where there is none.
Serpents and donkeys don’t talk. Rabbits don’t chew their cud.
Day and night are caused by the rotation of the earth in its orbit around the sun. They can’t exist before the sun. Neither can plants. Yet that’s what Genesis 1 says.
Men were not made by God’s own hand out of dust, nor were they created before women, who weren’t made from a rib.
It’s not just ludicrous to try to find science in the Bible. It’s blasphemous.
Aphan writes “Even the NAS views science and religion as compatible”
Or not, depending on how you define the words. They can even be identical when one worships at the altar of science and admires the evangelists Dawkins and Hitchins.
“If there is an all knowing being”
Many things are worshipped besides all-knowing beings. All it takes is for a being to know one more thing than you and you suddenly have no way to measure the knowledge of this supreme being whether he/she or it knows everything that is knowable and maybe some things that are not knowable.
Religion is simply that which you believe without proof, and I include that it influences your decision making processes.
Religion is also that which you believe with proof when it deals with right and wrong, your place in the universe, things like that. This is why the US Supreme Court has ruled that atheism is a religion.
Michael,
Did the USSC take up the 2005 ruling by the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals? I was unaware of that.
Maybe you have in mind that 1961 USSC decision that “secular humanism” is a religion.
Right and wrong, ie ethics, don’t require a religious underpinning. Neither do thought about one’s place in the universe or the meaning of life.
Gloateus writes “Right and wrong, ie ethics, don’t require a religious underpinning.”
A religious underpinning creates shared ethics, as otherwise your sense of right and wrong probably won’t be the same as mine.
Over time, this ethic *becomes* a religion, or so it seems to me; that is to say, religion has an underpinning of ethics with a negotiated social contract by which a group of people accept that this set of values is “just so”. Did Moses really talk to God (or listen, more likely) and obtain “Thou shalt not kill”? I don’t know and it doesn’t matter; what matters is that it established some rights and many wrongs.
A less traumatic example is what you do upon encountering minor lost property. For me, if it is not mine by right and title, leave it alone; its owner may come looking for it. For others, “finders keepers, losers weepers” and they feel no guilt over it. In the case of valuable minor property, deliver it to a suitable “lost and found” since the next person to happen across it may not have my ethics or honor.
She needs to learn from this;
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YP2KDUiBI-E
Clearly she’s not aware that science is not about conversion, nor can she be aware of the motto of the Royal Society: Nullius in verba. The accepted English translation being “Take no one’s word for it.” More succinctly, be skeptical. She, and so many others, just don’t understand that skeptism is an integral – indeed, essential – part of scientific research.
Any adult who has an imaginary friend in the sky must be susceptible to believing all sorts of rubbish.
david smith says “Any adult who has an imaginary friend in the sky must be susceptible to believing all sorts of rubbish.”
Got evidence?
Right here, right now, you are imaginary. Your existence is expressed solely by illuminated pixels visible through glass. Consequently, your actual reality is neither more nor less than my imaginary friend in the sky who fancies himself as a dragon, rather than a mere dragonfly. The reality isn’t real until I photograph it, at which point the photo is real but the dragonfly is ephemeral; here today, gone tomorrow.
Along with friends in the sky tends to be enemies in the sky. I wonder why atheists never discuss enemies in the sky?
There is evidence of his possible existence due to those illuminated pixels.
No such evidence exists for your spiritual beliefs. And that’s OK, since the supernatural by definition needs none.
Gloateus writes “There is evidence of his possible existence due to those illuminated pixels.”
Quite right. Define God as the sole “illuminator of pixels” and upon observing illuminated pixels, one has proof of God. It’s all in the definition.
“No such evidence exists for your spiritual beliefs.”
I have evidence sufficient for my needs. For you to believe otherwise is part of your own faith-based belief system, projecting onto me that which you have chosen to believe for yourself.
Michael,
There is no evidence of God, nor, as I keep pointing out, should there be.
Seeing God behind the universe is not the same as inferring a human behind messages on the Internet. True, an AI robot could have created them, but it would need a valid email address.
As Luther pointed out, the whole point of God and the universe is mystery.
But if you base your faith on what you see as evidence of God, great!
My Christian belief is based upon faith, as required by Romans and other verses, but my scientific conclusions require no faith. Except maybe in the belief that the same physical laws visible today operated billions of years ago.
Gloateus writes “There is no evidence of God”
Or there is. It depends on definition. Perhaps someday before we both die you will provide the meaning of the word as you use it.
“nor, as I keep pointing out, should there be.”
That is your belief. It is not my belief. Faith requires evidence. Not proof; but evidence. I am not required to believe anything for which there is no evidence.
How would one fish reveal the existence of “water” to another? It would be difficult, but not impossible. The easy way is to jump out of the water so as to recognize the existence of water by briefly going where there is none. That creates the “ah hah!” moment for the fish.
“Seeing God behind the universe is not the same as inferring a human behind messages on the Internet.”
That is a good example of why I believe in some sort of God: Messages! If I get a message, there must be an originator of that message. I am free to call that originator “God” but really that’s just a title, a place keeper. It could actually be my great Aunt Elmira that told me to change lanes and by so doing escaped a head-on collision.
“As Luther pointed out, the whole point of God and the universe is mystery.”
It was a mystery to him. It is not a mystery to me.
“But if you base your faith on what you see as evidence of God, great!”
Thank you. I was raised by an atheist, my father. Even so, he can recite the Lord’s Prayer whereas I cannot. So for him it was rebellion against the very Luther of which you speak, but the energy of rebellion stems from belief.
“my scientific conclusions require no faith.”
I suggest otherwise. Have you seen an atom? No? Nobody has seen an atom; what we can see are the effects produced by what we presume are atoms, and until something more explanatory comes along, it’s an “atom”. Since it doesn’t really matter all that much I’m happy to believe in atoms, quarks, forces and waves. It creates interesting technology and is nearly certain to be nearly complete since such things as transistors require an understanding of such things.
So it is with any of a few thousand definitions of God. You do not need to see God any more than you need to see an atom to comprehend the effect of atoms.
God might be sitting next to you in Mickey D’s. Would you know it? Probably not. Jesus disguised himself and walked with his disciples and they did not recognize him. If he wants you to know of his existence, then you will know, otherwise you won’t. It isn’t really your choice to make. On the other hand, you can open eyes, ears and mind and hope to obtain that evidence, or you can close your eyes, ears and mind and thus miss the evidence that I consider to be relatively abundant.
You want to discuss enemies in the sky? Well, there are none. There you go.
As for pixels: you don’t have to believe I exist. I couldn’t care less. One thing’s for sure though: a god had nothing to do with the pixels, it was all down to science.
David Smith writes: “You want to discuss enemies in the sky? Well, there are none.”
Seagulls and pigeons come to mind; terrorists at the wheel of jumbo jets comes to mind. Kim Il whatever’s rockets come to mind. Meteorites and asteroids. Lions and tigers and bears oh my!
“One thing’s for sure though: a god had nothing to do with the pixels, it was all down to science.”
Well then science is your god and you have one. You cannot fail to have one. Whatever you worship is it.
Michael 2 August 29, 2017 at 3:07 pm
I use “evidence” precisely as the term is defined in science and law.
A verifiable miracle might be considered evidence of the supernatural, but there are no verifiable miracles, events inexplicable according to the laws of nature as observed in our universe.
Gloateus writes “I use ‘evidence’ precisely as the term is defined in science and law.”
Thank you. I use it in a somewhat more relaxed manner, “something that reveals a cause”; without putting too much emphasis on words (no straining at gnats). If I see a pile of dog poop it is evidence of a dog even though the dog is not visibly present. It is not proof of a dog, merely evidence of a dog.
You speak of a special class of evidence; tangible physical evidence that can be put in a ziplock bag and passed around the jury. That kind is still relevant to supreme beings but you have to be able to recognize it, and you cannot recognize a thing you experience every day of your life, that which you are immersed in.
The other kind of evidence is ephemeral; the scent of a rose quickly evaporated. The flash and thunder of lightning that reveals a coming storm. Can I prove to you that I saw lightning and heard thunder last night? No, of course not. All I have are claims; here on the internet that is all ANYONE has!
“A verifiable miracle might be considered evidence of the supernatural”
By definition there cannot be tangible physical evidence of supernatural. If it is tangible it is natural!
The explanation is a bit more complicated. What people want is exclusive magical power; something I can do but nobody else (except maybe a priesthood). Suppose there is a god more or less as commonly defined by any of thousands of religions. If he moves mountains, then mountains will move regularly or irregularly and won’t seem unnatural. If he resurrects the dead, then it won’t be supernatural, it will be natural.
The supposition is that this supreme being will do what YOU specify in order to prove his existence, to boost his ego perhaps. Who knows? But the evidence is that he does not compel anyone to belief. You are free to learn whatever you can learn in this life, and as a result, be responsible for your choices.
“but there are no verifiable miracles”
Would it make a difference? I doubt it. A “verifiable miracle” isn’t a miracle (as these words are commonly used). Merely exceptional.
“events inexplicable according to the laws of nature as observed in our universe.”
Ah, well, as to that I have plenty. Well, more than zero anyway.
And “faith” is as in Hebrews 11:1.
Michael 2 August 30, 2017 at 1:14 pm
The New Testament uses “evidence” in the same way as I.
I mentioned Hebr@ws 11:1 because that passage has been translated using the word “evidence”. Regardless of translation, its gist is the same as Romans, ie that faith should be based upon “things not seen”.
To believe based upon evidence, whether real or imagined, is contrary to Protestant theology, and at least in part also to Roman Catholic and Orthodox doctrine.
The whole point is to believe in the incredible, without physical evidence. Maybe supernatural “evidence” counts, but that’s subjective.
Hence, as I said, there is no scientific evidence in favor of the God hypothesis, and that is how is should be, theologically, since God must remain hidden for justification by faith alone to work.
Gloateus wrote “I mentioned Hebr@ws 11:1 because that passage has been translated using the word evidence.”
Yes; the evidence of things not seen. What sort of evidence? A bit like the whoosh of wind of something rushing by in the night; sorta like me holding onto a pole at night at Truckee when a train went rushing by. It was exhilarating.
“faith should be based upon things not seen”
Not exactly, or as I understand it. Faith is in things not seen, but the “basing” will be on things that ARE seen, which includes ephemeral evidence (subjective) and the testimony of others.
“The whole point is to believe in the incredible without physical evidence. Maybe supernatural evidence counts, but that’s subjective.”
A problem exists in choosing *which* incredible to believe when so many choices exist and no physical evidence exists. But evidence does exist, the challenge is to attribute it meaningfully and correctly.
And, if, on the issue of faith and evidence, Paul’s words in Romans don’t convince you, then consider the case of Doubting Thomas. Protestants interpret the incident to support salvation by faith alone, while the Catholic interpretation differs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubting_Thomas#Gospel_account
But there is also John 11:26, in which Jesus said and asked (KJV), “And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?” No mention of “works” there. Only faith. Solo fide.
The “liveth” part could I suppose be interpreted as including “works” in the salvation matrix. But I’m going with Paul on this one. And Luther. And Calvin.
A theological paper on Luther’s Hidden God, Who actively hides Himself.
https://wordandworld.luthersem.edu/content/pdfs/19-4_God_and_Evil/19-4_Paulson.pdf
As indeed He must, if faith in Him and the Christ is to be meaningful.
I like religion, but ya gotta hand it to science, especially CliSci. You just can’t get 97% consensus in religion.
Religion was ancient man’s attempt to explain away the world around him. We don’t need religion now as we have science, and science has told us that we will never cease to discover new things about the universe(s). That is why science is so fantastic.
David Smith wrote “Religion was ancient man’s attempt to explain away the world around him.”
You seem to know a lot about the reasons ancient men did things. That’s amazing!
“We don’t need religion now as we have science”
You have identified your religion. It has pretty much all the trappings you’d expect in a religion, in your case acolytes and disciples. Authorities. Demands for money and obedience. Prophets and apostles of science.
People must be progressively becoming more gullible. Lost in their brainwashed world.
This so-called convincing material includes:
“Despite an overwhelming scientific consensus, a significant proportion of the American public continues to reject anthropogenic climate change.”
As this initial premise is overwhelmingly untrue, no need to read any further.
Yes, happily the fake consensus manufactured by the media colluding with CACA advocates, has not convinced everyone.
Even people who should know better repeat the false claim that 97% of “all scientists” believe in “climate change”, by which they mean catastrophic anthropogenic climate alarmism. But that bogus Big Lie is based upon 75 out of 79 cherry-picked “actively publishing climate scientists, who answered yes to two question to which many skeptics would also have said yes.
Never mind that every other group among the over 3000 respondents to the survey, all government or academic scientists, mind you, without any private sector participants, came in lower agreement. “Economic geologists” were at 47%, for example.
IOW, no consensus, even among public scientists in relevant disciplines.
“Would’n’it be luverly” if the daily press plastered a front page headline and explanation – “The 97% scientist claim is clearly not true!”
As it is the basis for maybe 97% of the alarmists believing in CAGW, that would rock the boat! 🙂