Press release Clintel Foundation
By uncritically embracing climate catastrophism, Pope Francis, perhaps unwittingly and most certainly unwillingly, rejects the God he clearly tries to serve wholeheartedly. That is the main conclusion of the essay Pope Francis’ Climate Crusade or the erosion of faith in God, a tale of two encyclicals, written by Jaap C. Hanekamp and William M. Briggs and published by Clintel.
Pope Francis outlined his views on climate change in two encyclicals, Laudato Si’ (2015) and Laudate Deum (2023). Concisely, the Pope fears that the world in which we live is collapsing and may be nearing the breaking point because of climate change. In fact, the Pope announced in his encyclicals that there is a “global climate crisis.”
In the essay Pope Francis’ Climate Crusade or the erosion of faith in God chemist and theologian Jaap C. Hanekamp and statistician and meteorologist William M. Briggs reflect on both encyclicals, though they do not assess the scientific information on climate change as such. Instead, they examine the Pope’s use and understanding of models, and delve deeper into the overarching philosophy that sustains both encyclicals. They conclude that the Pope, carelessly in their view, embraces scientism, and not science, which inadvertently weakens his position, and those that follow his scientistic prescriptions.
Scientism is the ideology that science alone is deemed capable of elucidating and resolving all genuine human problems, and that all human affairs can be reduced to science. Accordingly, scientism is the effort to expand science to all other fields of human affairs, even theology, and to usurp them in a reductionist fashion.
Hanekamp and Briggs conclude that the climate scientism Pope Francis peddles stands diametrically opposed to the Christian worldview. “Scientism of any stripe is incommensurable with not only the Christian faith but also with science.”
About the authors
Jaap C. Hanekamp is a chemist by trade and received his first PhD in 1992. In 2015, he defended his second dissertation: Utopia and Gospel: Unearthing the Good News in Precautionary Culture. He blogs at https://jaaphanekamp.com/. William M. Briggs holds a PhD in Mathematical Sciences and an MS in Atmospheric Physics, and has served in various roles including professor, consultant, and statistician. He blogs at https://www.wmbriggs.com/.
The essay can be downloaded here.
ABOUT CLINTEL
The Climate Intelligence foundation (Clintel) was founded in 2019 by emeritus professor of geophysics Guus Berkhout and science journalist Marcel Crok. Clintel’s main objective is to generate knowledge and understanding of the causes and effects of climate change, as well as the effects of climate policy. Clintel published the World Climate Declaration, which has now been signed by more than 1900 scientists and experts. Its central message is “there is no climate emergency”. In 2023 Clintel published the book The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC, in which it documented serious errors and biases in the latest IPCC report.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The current pope does not serve God.
He serves 2 religions… and himself.
The world is heading for a breaking point because of the climate change agendas and all the clueless crap like Net Zero, anti-CO2ism, wokism, etc etc .
According to Dan Bongino, when the pope comes to the US, he has a larger protection detail than the President. That’s because his treat level is greater than the President, and they don’t want the pope assassinated on US soil.
Biden is dictating the assets for Trump. Since when does Biden have any knowledge of protection? They want Trump killed. They are assigning assets according to title and not threat level. And Biden, who wants Trump dead, is doing the assigning. The media is now blaming Trump for his assassination attempts. And ladies shouldn’t wear short skirts, because then they deserve to be raped. What stupid nonsense–ladies never deserve to be raped.
I doubt if Biden does much of anything these days that requires cognitive thought, let alone getting involved in the assignment of protection details.
Especially when on the beach, on vacation which is more than 40% of his time in office.
Biden’s name should be in quotes. As in “Biden”, indicating that he is not doing anything at this point, and hasn’t been for a very long time. Except saying what his handlers want him to say and being where they put him. Just sayin’.
I’m just Biden my time until a new President is elected.
“ What stupid nonsense–ladies never deserve to be raped.”
Maybe you should tell your messiah that.
moronic simpleton yaps again.. No evidence of course.
“And ladies shouldn’t wear short skirts, because then they deserve to be raped.”
Who is saying that?
Much of the legacy media, blaming Trump for “inflammatory rhetoric” being the cause of the assassination attempts. Button that blouse higher, ladies!
Secret Service is under DHS. Mayorkas has the authority to change protection from title based to threat based but he is a Biden puppet. However, the optics are now so bad that additional protection was just announced.
I would bet it was not the last one, exactly because of additional protection.
As was demonstrated, POTUS is a figurehead whose greatest effect is playing the unofficially official press via social media (until he was locked out of that), he cannot prevent the real government from doing whatever it damn well pleases. Also, the “elections” proved completely controllable as much more votes can be cast than there are legitimate voters in a state, so whoever controls them chooses the next POTUS. The ensuing riot was not serious.
Thus, Trump as such is not going to get power other than by being given it, and as such is no threat to anyone. If the powers-that-be (or even powers-that-maybe) wanted to kill Trump anyway, there is no hurry. He cannot be elected without their permission, so why not just wait a bit and “suicide” him in prison, or something? It worked with Epstein.
Therefore, assassination attempts were not about killing him.
Why? Who knows. My best guess is that this was intended as a message to the next POTUS: “should we decide to remove you, these Secret Service dolts won’t save you, so do what you are told”.
If you can imagine Biden dictating anyhing, you have much better imagination than mine.
Many may “want”, but who and why would actually bother to? It’s not like he can actually do anything but talk.
I’m still waiting for anyone—anyone at all—to offer a widely accepted, rather-specific scientific definition of “climate change”. Is it only increasing global atmospheric temperature . . or does it include rising sea levels . . . or does it include melting of the polar ice caps . . . or is it just the fact that atmospheric CO2 concentration is increasing . . . or is it perhaps the claims of increasing frequency of storms of all kinds . . . or does it include the “greening of Earth” that has been scientifically documented over the last twenty or so years . . . or . . . or . . .?
“If you can’t define something you have no formal rational way of knowing that it exists. Neither can you really tell anyone else what it is. There is, in fact, no formal difference between inability to define and stupidity.”
— Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
It includes whatever they need it to include at any given moment.
Defining it isn’t very hard. But they don’t want it. Wasn’t “AGW” replaced in part because a blurry bugbear is better for the usual motte-and-bailey manoeuvres?
Climate Change: (NOAA/NASA) changes in long term weather patterns.
As I said: “a widely accepted, rather-specific scientific definition of ‘climate change’ “
What you provided falls WAAAAY short of that. ROTFL!
As an expert climate scientist, why hasn’t Pope Francis signed the World Climate Declaration?
Maybe he tried but was rejected for lack of relevant experience?
More a case of go with the flow and hop in for your chop from Caesar. God works in mysterious ways but Caesar can often be very predictable.
More so a committee.
Religious people are incapable of being truly objective. I always have doubts of the decision making process of religious people. It’s like they are covered in velcro and stuff just seems to be attracted to them. Or they are attracted to stuff.
Once they have accepted things, they can’t let it go. Just like their religion.
Most of the world is religious in one way or another. I don’t trust most of the world.
Where on earth did you get that idea from?
Cattle breathalyser captures burps to track emissions, battle climate change (msn.com)
Hardly an idea, it’s an observation.
Kamala should be given a breathalyser as seem often appear drunk.
“Kamala should be given a breathalyser as seem often appear drunk.”
You sure she’s not the only one doing the drinking?
Certainly not, Biden likely is too!!
In fact the Biden Administration Cabinet is likely a Liquor Cabinet
Ah, so Galileo was incapable of being truly objective? (Once they have accepted things, they can’t let it go.)
It would also seem that I am also incapable of being truly oibjective.
But given that the majority of people in the world follow one religion or another, it must be nice being part of that minority who alone are capable of being objective.
Well that was a load of gibberish !
He just served a Harris word salad.
There is no hope if you are religiously inclined. You are looking for loopholes to justify your own belief. Go and pray somewhere.
A very religious claim. Such generalizations are statements of faith, and clearly false since many of the great thinkers were religious people, from Gregor Mendel to Michael Farraday, George Washington Carver to Roy Spencer and John Christy. I think you can amend the statement to “authoritarian people are incapable of being truly objective”.
Some of those with strong religious convictions are authoritarian. It goes with the conviction of having all the answers. However, there is another type of strong religious conviction that is associated with the humility of not having all the answers. The Pope is not one of these.
And, let us not forget the atheists who also believe they have all the answers.
It was a priest that gave you the “Big Bang Theory”.
And Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the Jesuit paleontologist- who believed in evolution and taught it. But, such high level members of the Church aren’t religious in the traditional sense of simple minded dogma.
So what.
Your words:”I always have doubts of the decision making process of religious people.”
So if you doubt his theory then I must think you accept that God created the universe.
I am glad to know you are truly objective.
Objectivity comes from questioning your own beliefs.
Did you question that?
you are an idiot
I bet many of those who say they are religious, aren’t. They just say- the same way so many scientists say they agree with the “consensus” on climate change. Makes life easier.
As opposed to?..
IMO (as an instrumentalist) people dreaming to be “truly objective” tend to be schizoids with mild delusion of godhood.
Specifically, delusion of being a “spirit over waters”. Surely an infinitely smart flawless observer seeing the world without even contaminating the observed phenomena could watch all these cogs spinning and predict… Which, of course, is not even physically possible on a fine enough scale.
Religious people are incapable of being truly objective.
That is just as objectionable as radial profiling, declaring white people, especially white males are racist, all capitalists are crooks, people who question the science consensus are “deniers,” etc.
* racial *
Get back to us when you’ve isolated “Life” from something alive and put it in a test tube.
(There would be Big Bucks in that. Funeral homes could stop using embalming fluid and use “Bottled Life” instead!)
There is the natural realm and there is the spiritual realm.
Best to be honest about both.
One pope two gods.
More like a Janus Pope
One face that turns to God
One face that turns to Science…though Science tends to deny God as it CAN’T prove God exists
God = Creator…intelligent design
Frankie the Blasphemous does not serve his Creator in any way or fashion. He worships at the alter of gaia. He also misses the mark on science, as the environmental garbage he spews has all been thoroughly debunked. The most amazing aspect of his heretical reign is that so many Catholics still believe that a failed, and deeply flawed and misguided, human sinner can be “elected” and thus declared infallible on faith matters.
Don’t promote creationism. It makes you look like the strange people standing in front of my towns bookshop.
I suspect you have a lot in common with the Marxists that frequently proselytized at the entrance to my university’s dining halls. In addition to being strange, they also spewed a poisonous doctrine that even back then had resulted in the murder and immiseration of billions.
Two quick questions:
Are you telling me there are two creationist on this board?
Best Theory we have so far.
Don’t try to think, little child.
You are not capable of it.
But you didn’t answer the second question. Afraid? Can’t?
Consider the possibility that the Big Band and Let there be light are one and the same, just defined at different times from different perspectives.
I have and that is why I ask him the question.
I got that and was actually trying to support your statement.
Thanks. I appreciate that.
Creation vs Big Bang
Both are basically the same thing
Both imply an “In the beginning”
Both create Stars, Galaxies and Life from nothing.
Neither can show evidence (proof) for anything existing prior.
One attributes to random occurrence the other to intelligent design
There are many physical constants that if modified by even a minute amount would result in a universe nothing like this or perhaps no universe at all.
What caused the definition of those values?
a. Intelligent design
b. An infinite combination of values until one that work happened and we are the result.
c. Other?
From your underwhelming ignorance, it is apparently you have never been anywhere near a bookshop.
“Science tends to deny God as it CAN’T prove God exists”
Science also cannot prove God doesn’t exist.
If God is everything, and that probability is non-zero, then science is merely creating mathematical expressions of God. Just a philosophical point of view, not my personal belief.
Carl Sagan once alluded to the possibility that God and the universe were the same.
Science is not in the business of offering “proofs” . . . only hypothesis that best fit the objective, science-based data and observations on a particular subject.
Nowhere in any description of the Scientific Method will you find mention of the words “prove” or “proof”.
Perhaps I should have used “disprove.”
Scientific Method allows for disproof.
Not really. Nowhere in any description of the Scientific Method will you find mention of the words “disprove” or “disproof”.
However, some description of SM do mention “alternative hypothesis” of “alternative hypotheses”, but these are NOT the same as “proofs” or “disproofs”.
So was Einstein wrong when he said,” No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
It should be obvious if you think about it: Einstein was expressing a personal view . . . not what the Scientific Method represents.
Next question.
False gods? It all sounds a bit heretical 😲: pagan pantheism the personification of nature.
Climate alarmism is itself a quasi-religion, the basis is the teleological belief that the climate conditions and variations before say 1950 were as intended and any human-caused variation from a ‘natural’ predetermined state must be intrinsically harmful even wicked.
An erstwhile Australian prime minister epitomise that view when he declared climate change to be the ‘great moral challenge of our time’ and hence ‘climate deniers’ meaning anyone who dares deviate from that view are not only wrong but also immoral.
Frying pantheism; Buddhists can always use a wok.
Mr. varius: Leaving the eternal question, on rice or noodles?
Hmmmmm . . . I always thought it was “Would you like a fortune cookie to go with that?”
From Springfield, Ohio:
“How to Wok Your Dog”
Story tip https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62rr5qe602o
Rowlett.. so you know it is a load of propaganda BS. !!
“In 2022 the country experienced its worst drought for 40 years “
So the droughts more than 40 years ago were worse.
This twerp has foot in mouth disease… a total cretin.
That is blatant propaganda, as you would expect from ‘our Justin’.
You could call him a bolleaux multiplier.
I wonder how many, if any, of the people commenting on this post have read any of the following:
I have only read Laudato Si so I am not going to comment on the essay. What I do wonder about is the description of Hanekamp as a theologian. I looked him up on the internet and could not find anything that confirms that he is a theologian (Other than commenting on theology). He has a blog and it is divided into sections. One section is ‘Theology’ but that sections includes posts such as “From anti-vax to nitrogen denial or the curse of bullism”. Hardly theology.So what we appear to have is an analysis of two papal encyclicals by a chemist and a mathematician/physicist. Excellent quualifications for analysing the science iof the Pope’s encyclicals but perhaps not so for examining their philosophical bases.
“The Pope has called for powerful global governance to control the climate.”
That is all you need to know.
Ignorant, self-righteous, totalitarian…. and dumb as an ox.
He has become the puppet of the UN and the globalists.
He worships them as gods…
Any Christian religious beliefs he might once have had, have been over-written by the climate demons.
You can include the Roman Catholic Church among the many institutions the Left has successfully marched through.
I see everything the pope says as a form of childish virtue-seeking.
And he has failed to find any.
If was founded by a lefty.
Have to agree. Jesus was a huge leftie. All this “blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth” stuff. And healing the sick without them having to have any health insurance? And whats with the rich man struggling to get into heaven and this eye of a needle thing? Definitely a leftie.
But he also said “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”. No lefty would say that. Maybe he was an independent. 🙂
No lefty would support healing the sick without insurance, as the call is for universal health care. Of course Simon does not get it. All free choice virtues are welcome by the right, and admired.
Government mandates that often do the opposite of the stated intent, are not admired, and often later condemned as mass murder.
Ahem. Every lefty wants all your money. So….
I’m a lefty. I have enough money. Don’t need or want yours.
Neither Jesus nor God the Father nor any of the Apostles ever commanded anyone to help the poor via civil government. Please do look for it in the Bible, though. And keep reading until you find it.
By the way, “Blessed are the meek” was not spoken to you; do not pretend to understand it. Jesus spoke the Sermon on the Mount to His disciples. Only.
Blessed are the meek. In other words, be humble, not prideful.
Doesn’t seem like he said “everyone must be meek”. He just blessed those who are meek. If everyone was humble and not prideful, we’d still be up in the trees. It’s good that many are- but I think the human race needs diversity of character – just like diversity of species in the ecosystem.
I did not insinuate that.
It seems more related to the pride (hubris) comes before the fall.
I disagree the humble and modest would have kept us in the trees.
Nice idealism- but reality is that a lot of people are brutes. The rest of us have to learn to live with them. Sometimes the brutes take over- for a while. Then the nicer people take over. Rising from omnivores who were used to killing animals, early humans had little trouble killing humans. So, it’s not possible that humans could all be humble and modest. If they were, some of the progress we gained from war and struggle would be lacking. There was one species of Australopithecus that were vegetarians. I bet they were mostly humble and modest until they went extinct.
” be humble, not prideful.”
I do my best but it’s hard
“Neither Jesus nor God the Father nor any of the Apostles ever commanded anyone to help the poor via civil government.”
But I think you would have to agree Jesus would approve of the collective (government) helping those in need. Wouldn’t you? Or are you one of those selective “God helps those who help themselves” Christians?
“By the way, “Blessed are the meek” was not spoken to you; do not pretend to understand it. Jesus spoke the Sermon on the Mount to His disciples. Only.”
Ah wrong….. “The sermon was addressed to disciples and a large crowd of listeners to guide them in a life of discipline based on a new law of love, even to enemies, as opposed to the old law of retribution.”
You have ignored my point, offered me a false choice and given a mis-definition. God knows what government is for, and you do not. Government is a justice institution, not a mercy institution. The fact that something is not done by government does not mean it isn’t done.
Simon, if you’ll contemplate these truths that must seem paradoxical to you; namely that (1) God loves the poor and wants us to help them, and (2) God never wants us to help them via government, you will find a great insight.
No, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Jesus didn’t give instructions to people like you who He knows won’t follow those instructions. The “pearls before swine” thing is right there in the sermon.
Jesus’ command to unbelievers is to repent and believe. Jesus’ commands to disciples are what you see in the Sermon on the Mount.
“(1) God loves the poor and wants us to help them, and (2) God never wants us to help them via government, you will find a great insight.”
Your opinion. So pleased you feel free to have one. You must live in a country that values freedom.
“No, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Jesus didn’t give instructions to people like you who He knows won’t follow those instructions. The “pearls before swine” thing is right there in the sermon.”
You seem to be saying be selective about what you want to take fro the bible. Great that works for me.
“Jesus’ command to unbelievers is to repent and believe. Jesus’ commands to disciples are what you see in the Sermon on the Mount.”
Once again, your opinion, but not one held by most who study the bible. Isn’t it wonderful how the bible is so flexible. But seriously, come on, it is right there in the opening scene of Life of Brian. “Blessed are the cheese maker.”
No, actually those are two verifiable facts available in the Bible. That’s the book that you seem to want to argue about, but don’t understand. When you had a question about the Bible you went to the Encyclopedia Britannica. !
No, I am citing actual words from the SOM and making logical inferences from them.
By “most who study the bible [sic]” you mean the liberal author of the Encyclopedia article. !
If you want to commit the logical fallacy of appeal to authority, at least find a good one. BibleHub is good.
It seems flexible to you because you don’t understand it. Scoffers cannot understand the Bible and you have shown in this thread that you don’t want to understand it. So it will always be closed to you, and you will always make yourself look ridiculous when you write about it.
Now go tell some Muslims what their book means. I’m sure they would value your insights just as much as I do.
Approval of the collective helping?
I do believe his view point was more along the line of the Good Samaritan.
The collective (government) never actually helps anyone. It merely throws money and hopes people cheer. Like tossing bread to the crowds at a gladiatorial contest.
Humor is a difficult concept.
You (and Simon) have very odd definitions of the ‘Left’. I’m no theologian, but I don’t recall any tenets within Christianity to ‘turn over the means of production to “society,” “the workers,” or some other fictitious entity that effectively means the state; and limits or prohibits private property’.
socialists-it-doesnt-matter-if-socialism-works-what-matters-power
Clearly you are confusing communism with societies that have a social safety net for its citizens. They are very different things. Communism is not to be followed and in the end, like extreme capitalism, has a history of punishing its citizens. On the other hand, ask the citizens of Sweden how they feel about the support their government offers them, albeit for the cost of higher taxes.
But don’t beat yourself up re the definition, it is a commonly misunderstood thing round here.
I didn’t mention ‘communism’, so you should work on your reading comprehension. I’d be willing to bet that ‘feelings’ about Sweden’s welfare system are a mixed bag, depending on who you ask. They do indeed pay higher taxes for that, which requires coercion, but fortunately haven’t squandered too much of their national wealth, at least until recently, on defense or meddling in the foreign affairs of others.
They also had the advantage of being a culturally cohesive lot, although that’s rapidly changing with their government’s insistence that they import a large number of immigrants who have no interest in becoming ‘Swedish’. Apparently, the wheels are falling off that experiment, but the government doesn’t seem all that interested in asking its citizens how they ‘feel’ about that.
“I didn’t mention ‘communism’,”
Ah… yea you did.
“or some other fictitious entity that effectively means the state; and limits or prohibits private property’.”
And….By all accounts the Swedes are among the happiest people on the planet. Certainly a whole lot happier than those in the Un-United States.
There are many socialist limits on private property, and prohibits as well. (no gas lines, no fireplaces, only low flow toilets that must be flushed twice, etc, I can go on and on for a very long time. So now you admit that, by your own definition, you are a cmmunist?
Their authority comes from the state, which comes from the threat of force, and or violence. “Government is a necessary evil.” Socialism is everywhere and always a progressive step to tyranny. Now that the statists heave lost the control of the narrative due to the internet, their masks have come off, and the calls for a ministry of “truth” are multiplying weekly, with Hilary Clinton joining in yesterday. You cannot outlaw “misinformation” without a “Ministy of truth”
You are conflating communism and socialism. The nuances between the two makes that easy.
Frank from NoVA, theologian or not, you are correct. The Christian doctrine is “If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat.” (2 Thessalonians 3:10b)
But, he said “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”. Doesn’t sound like something a lefty would say.
Unfortunately, Leftist’s believe that all things either belong to and/or should be controlled by Caesar, aka, the State.
“It was founded by a lefty.”
Which would explain why the whole RC church, especially the top honchos, is so *ucked up..
… and so full of mindless virtue-seeking and self-aggrandisement.
Except the Catholic Church throughout history has claimed to be the One True Faith and has pushed via many mechanisms to become the sole ruler of all humanity.
In other words, One World Order with a Catholic stripe so everyone pays their tithe.
Well the Catholic Church also goes against the first commandment and adorns their churches with idols that their parishioners pray to.
Hail Mary full of grace…
Stations of the Cross
Even the saints have medals (graven images)
“to be the One True Faith”
Hinduism and Buddhism and Islamism would argue against that. 😉
You twisted my words.
I did not say the Catholic Church was the One True Faith, but that the church itself declared it so and has pushed for millennia to be the dominant or exclusive religion on the planet.
Modernism is a formal heresy (Pascendi Dominici gregis. Pope Pius X 1907) and only one of the many heresies disqualifying Jorge Bergoglio. The Holy See is sedevacant, as is the Oval Office.
The Pope obviously doesn’t understand the Earth’s climate, but he thinks he does.
This does not inspire confidence, and would cause me to question everything he thinks he knows.
If the Pope is wrong about CO2 and the Earth’s climate, then what else is he wrong about?
The Pope should stick to religious matters, but it’s too late for that now. He has exposed himself as a confused thinker. Not a good look for a Pope.
Popes are compromises chosen by a committee.
This pope is definitely proof that there is no god. Or, if there is one, it really wants to eliminate Catholicism. The way they’re going, Greta Thunberg will be the next pope, and she will install Mel Gibson as the cardinal of Hollywood.
Or if there is one, He/She is not micromanaging the ALL.
I am sure a merciful god in his/her wisdom would have ensured Hanekamp and Briggs at least got the title of the essay right – shouldn’t it be “Pope Francis’s Climate Crusade” and plural popes are strictly forbidden.
I am increasingly of the opinion that the brains and integrity of all things climate rests on the side that doesn’t believe in hell and damnation in 2050 or at any time many decades later. The alarmists need to do stuff they really understand and we could all benefit from that big time when we get back to being sensible and not just plain stupid and brainless. .
Except those same climate alarmists are declaring Hell on Earth within a few months/years.
“Pope Francis, perhaps unwittingly and most certainly unwillingly, rejects the God he clearly tries to serve wholeheartedly”
He is antichrist. He is a communist. He is evil personified.
Have you ever read ‘Fifty Years in the Church of Rome by Charles Chiniquy’?
Please do.
This website is based on evidence not delusion.
Jesus sounds more like a socialist, so I guess communist is not too far off.
Antichrist reminded me about a site I saw a few years ago:
https://www.benjaminlcorey.com/could-american-evangelicals-spot-the-antichrist-heres-the-biblical-predictions/
I thought it’s based on imaginary whales and powerpoint reactors 😛
I think your mother is calling for your bedtime.
So no more imaginary nuclear powered glitter-whales for me?
You will dream of them.. if your granny gives you the right tablets.
The Pope is probably not very interested in his “religious” duties. Just lending his title to the current popular political flow. Or, maybe, he is reflecting his socialist background. Humble opinion.
True Christians adamantly believe God is omniscient and omnipotent and omnipresent, that God has a plan and everything happens according to God’s will, right down to the leaf falling off a tree.
They also believe the Lord works in mysterious ways.
So how is it, the Pontiff claims that humanity is responsible and only humanity can solve this?
Curious minds want to know.
“Scientism of any stripe is incommensurable with not only the Christian faith but also with science.”
CORRECT
Lord of the Flies
Hanekamp and Briggs cite several instances of people making predictions about the future effects of climate change that did not come true by the dates originally predicted.
In Christian theology, people making predictions which do not occur are defined as “false prophets”, whose word is to be discounted, according to several quotes in the Gospels from Jesus Himself.
Given the past track record of the global-warming “prophets” of doom, Pope Francis should be wary of trusting predictions of future catastrophes from so-called “scientists” who have a financial interest in selling “solutions” to a future “problem” which may never occur. He may be guilty of following false prophets, which Jesus warned everyone not to do about 2,000 years ago.
Very nice. I am not Catholic and don’t pay any attention to the Pope. I can speak to churches in general. My ex church in particular is a disgrace. They might just as well throw their bibles away and worship the Democrat platform. The ELCA is bad news.
This begs the hypothetical question: Is the pontiff the AntiChrist?
Supporting false prophets (no apocalyptic predictions came true for over 50 years).
Leading humanity to Armageddon (the end of human civilization and death of countless millions).
No claims. Just something to chew on.
He is definitely an Antipope in the eyes of many Catholics. Seeing how he does not seem to be a Catholic in any meaningful criteria other than dressing like one. Search for “antipope francis” yields a lot of results.
One of the reasons the Arab world lost its lead in math and science is because religious zealots took over academic institutions and began to attribute all natural developments to the will of Allah. Growing up in Pakistan I was taught that floods and droughts were Allah’s punishment for not being good Muslims. It appears the Pope is headed in the same direction.
From the above article:
“They conclude that the Pope, carelessly in their view, embraces scientism, and not science . . .
Scientism is the ideology that science alone is deemed capable of elucidating and resolving all genuine human problems, and that all human affairs can be reduced to science.”
So, Papa, how much progress has scientism made toward ending wars based on differences in religious beliefs? You know, such as the armed conflicts between Sunnī Muslims and Shīʿa Muslims that have been ongoing for something like over one thousand years.
Within Christianity, how about the theological conflicts, still ongoing, between Catholics and Protestants?
It seems to me that scientism is taking a looooong snooze.
The Pope should get on with his day job as Head of the Catholic Church and not pretend that he has some scientific expertise.
“Socialism is the religion people get when they lose their religion.” – Richard John Neuhaus
Have the materialists come to the realization that their relativism is a logical fallacy and they have no logical ground to stand on? Nope.