Can’t see video? Click here.
This is one talk out of a number during an interesting debate on the subject, “Would We Be Better Off Without Religion?”
On a vaguely related front related to yesterday’s post on gay marriage, gay scientists have isolated a Christian gene.
And while I’m at it, here’s an article with more proof of evolution. Here’s a quote:
“The discovery answers an age-old question that has puzzled biologists since the time of Darwin: How can organisms be so exquisitely complex, if evolution is completely random, operating like a ‘blind watchmaker’?” said Chakrabarti, an associate research scholar in the Department of Chemistry at Princeton. “Our new theory extends Darwin’s model, demonstrating how organisms can subtly direct aspects of their own evolution to create order out of randomness.”
The presenter is what happens when smart people take really good drugs!
Bravo!
I, as an atheist, see this as patently obvious. It takes a versed debater to put this all into perspective. This man is 100% spot-on correct. Environmentalism is a religion and it is seeking to gain converts from Christianity. In a sense, this is a religious war of words between competing theologies, one humanity based and one planetary based. And we are all SINNERS! SHAME!!
I only had time to watch the intro this morning. I am anxious to watch the remainder of the speech this evening.
Excellent find, Uncle Dave!
So much material to review. Still, heard it all before. So far:
1. Would we be better off without religion?/// Of course. The fewer differences between culture/populations the better as far as going to war over differences is the issue. Then, without war, the population increases even faster and we all starve to death. Never a happy ending.
2. Christian Genes? /// Doubt it but the “religious drive” is no doubt genetic/darwinian==ability to think abstractly, see correlations, being afraid of death, and a herd animal. Very social behavior.
3. The purpose driven protein? /// Doubt that too. Darwins theory with subparts for punctuated acceleration is sufficient to explain all. Add that to researchers looking for grants and to publish for tenure and there will be lots of red herrings postulated as the details of our continuing march get understood.
Wow, if you stick “ism” on the end of anything then you can argue it’s a religion.
If only there was a Christian gene. Then we could suppress it!
It sure beats believing in a talking snake!
Yeah environmentalism is a religion. They always invent ways in which people are ‘sinning’
with certain people who like to wear their religion on their sleeve(Prius).
I predict if any of the alternative energies become too cheap, they will make that a sin as well.
Not only that, they will try to make a sin out of using regular water instead of bottled water, because washing glasses uses more energy than to make the plastic. Perhaps they will insist that people reuse the same glass a few times.
I’ll submit this video for the 100,000$ YouTube contest !!!
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/11/12/onion-parodies-lame.html
Religion? Way of life?
I’d like to see just how much of our recycled bin materials actually make it back into useful products.
It’s a joke that Coca-Cola / Pepsi not be forced to use their recycled products.
See this article calling most recycling programs bull manure.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/11/celebrate-zero-waste-day.php
Depends what he’s talking about. If its the environmental movement – in the form of tree hugging, and say living in tepees, then perhaps he has a point.
If he’s taking about global warming/climate change then it seems way off base. It only works if you believe ‘science’ in general is a religion. I do not because Science is just a method of producing models that produce repeatable results. That’s all. Its not a religion – it cannot, and does not try to replace religion. They aren’t incompatible – as they address different needs.
The only ‘faith’ required in science is that if something can be repeatedly demonstrated, if all variables remain the same result will remain. I believe it is a definition of madness to believe the opposite.
And anyway the world, of cars, planes, computers, medicine etc kind of proves the method has merit.
But to go back to the guys rant. There maybe some media bias on what is reported in terms of contrary ideas on climate change. There’s not much on the news on the effect of the sun for example.
Anyway as a previous poster pointed out, the things that we need to do in order combat climate change – seem like pretty sensible things to do anyway. So even if the exact reasons for climate change aren’t entirely correct (say the majority isn’t man made) we would still win by pursing it.
And just to clarity – that’s not to say we shouldn’t put serious research into working out what is going on, just that a lot of this kind of stuff seems more about keeping the status quo – as opposed to any real ideas. Say like what the tobacco companies did for years. Just my 0.5c.
We have the weapon of the future though. Metal.
http://coilhouse.net/2008/11/11/heavy-metal-east-music-is-the-weapon-of-the-future/
Put some metal on your blog and stay locked and loaded. She likes it when you break the rules! Stay bad.
“This is the first generation to fear a warmer climate.” Um, with rising sea levels that comes from a warmer climate and the destruction that can bring to populated areas around the world (see Indonesia, for example) is it any wonder? To paint environmentalism as a religion denigrates the idea of preserving our environment, which seems like sound policy to me. Of course there are alarmists in every cause, but what’s so wrong with a little less consumption and a little more preservation?
The actual debate topic was, “Would We Be Better Off Without Religion?” The obvious answer is that we would be better off without poor questions and bad religion. As an example of a bad religion, I cite the religion that complains vociferously about belief in God while not lifting a finger against real injustice.
Just an opinion…
Religion comes from Latin words meaning “source” and “back”. Many organized social structures that call themselves religions don’t understand how a religion is supposed to function. A tool, technique or approach to gaining insight into one’s source must be thought of as religion.
The first mistake the video makes is to say those social entities that preach “we/they” values are religions. “We” are better because we are not “Them”. This is not religion but politics. Environmentalism is not a relgion but a movement based on assumptions some of which are true and some of which are not.
If you’re a hammer everything looks like a nail.
If you are a religious zealot everything looks like an opposing religion.
Lay your bet on a clean Corvette. Heavy metal. Only in America folks.
#7
Get out of the closet already.
I understand the point this person is making. However, by calling environmentalism a religion, he immediately discounts as if it were invalid many many years of scientific research into ecosystems, habitats, and the processes that go on in our planet.
I suspect that his mining background has given him a rather narrow focus and that he has not paid adequate attention to the real valid science that has been done in a wide variety of fields.
Does he discount that there really is a mass extinction underway caused by habitat destruction?
If so, how and with what data? Where are the extinct species hiding?
Does he discount that the cryosphere is indeed melting? If so, how and by what data?
Skepticism is indeed a good thing. It is what drives science. But casting stones at a wide array of scientific fields, none of which is the one this man happens to be a member of, is the way to do so.
If he believes that the environmentalists are wrong, I would ask for the data. I, for one, would love to believe that we could continue our throw away economy forever, though I can’t imagine where the resources will come from to do so, perhaps if we one day begin mining our landfills for raw materials.
I would love to believe that we have indeed not caused numerous species to go extinct by reducing the natural habitats on the planet by an enormous factor. But, where is the data?
In short, by what data does this man claim that all of environmentalism is nothing more than a religion?
Is he right that many, myself included, highlight doomsday scenarios? Yes. There is data that says that they are real. Where is his data to show that they are false?
Remember, skepticism is good. Be skeptical. Include this man’s message in your skepticism, even if it is a message that we would all like to believe. Ask him to show you the data.
Oops. Please replace that middle paragraph in my prior post with this:
Skepticism is indeed a good thing. It is what drives science. But casting stones at a wide array of scientific fields, none of which is the one this man happens to be a member of, is not the way to do so.
Funny how much difference a not makes.
Ok lemme get this straight, the atheists here are convinced that religion is bad and there is no god because of what some religious people do and say. That’s sort of like my saying that there’s no such thing as sub atomic particles just because I don’t understand them and probably couldn’t even if I wanted to. I could go into the value and tangibility of symbols or how time and change have the purpose of purifying and perfecting the universe, or even how having ‘good’ values improves the quality of an individual’s existence – but I ain’t no evangelist! Still I do find it mildly irritating the fervor with which atheists try to demonstrate how intelligent they are!
He is supporting his side of the debate by telling how religion has infected a science.
His error is that political/public health science has never been true science. By that I’m not referring to the details science rather the science of picking results from the details science to promote whatever views/beliefs/agendas/funding the ‘researcher’ has. Simply by selecting results that fit makes such ‘gathering science’ false, a fraud.
And Yes, it’s it obvious that environmentalism has been infected with the CO2 molecule naughty habits virus.
Pagan, Pagan, Pagan.
Religion is the worship of a deity or the supernatual.
Homids have been doing this since their beginnings. It is unreasonable to think that one could purge the mind of such a concept. Even the most ardent, vocal atheist cannot rid her/his mind of this concept.
Religion is here to stay, no matter what. If you wish to participate that is fine. If you choose not to that is fine. Neither side can without question claim they are right beyond all doubt. So the point is moot.
Religion, in and of itself, was never the catalyst for mankinds’ woes. That is a scapegoat argument. The same faulty logic as raping women is justified because their wore skimpy outfits. Hogwash.
The woes of all mankind are directly related to man, not a concept. We cannot blame concepts or non-living things for our problems. We can only blame ourselves.
We have made the world bad for ourselves. Through our greed. Greed for wealth, greed for food, greed for land, greed for sex and so on.
Greed and its inherent selfishness has ruined the world. Not some fallen angel, not some crazed norse deity and not some hokey greek box.
We cannot blame anything but ourselves. And it is only ourselves that can fix it.
We are the enemy.
Cursor_
Cursor, a religion does not have to worship a deity or supernatural. Just look at the ancient druids that built Stonehenge. They were nature worshippers. Only they didn’t think twice about cutting down trees to move boulders.
Also, almost all modern religions have their roots in the worship of the Sun, Moon, and the stars. The only difference is they eventually evolved into gods that have human faces. There is even conjecture that Jesus is a celestial religion that closely follows the seasons and spiritual renewal of spring and the slow death of winter. That has been discussed here at DU before.
But, you are right. Religion is here to stay, just like chicken pox.
Anyway, not all eco-weenies are evangelical about their newfangled religion but they are nevertheless religious about it, just like lots of Christians. Heck, I know lots of people that say they are Christians but still drink like fish, cheat on their wives, speak evil things about their neighbors, etc, etc. You can drive a Prius and be holier-than-though about it and still live in a 12,854 sq ft house like Leo DeCaprio.
Scott, environmentalism isn’t the same as science. The alar scare, DDT ban, etc have been proof of that.
So they don’t know anything about the life sciences and they don’t know anything about the Bible and no doubt don’t like what little they do know but they still tell the world they how to think.
Michael Crichton delivered a speech with this exact title 5 years before this guy…
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html
#27, Lyin’ Mike,
Scott, environmentalism isn’t the same as science. The alar scare, DDT ban, etc have been proof of that.
Quite to the contrary. Alar was something blown out of proportion by non-scientific but well intentioned people and DDT has shown to be harmful when used as it was when it was banned.
#29, LittleBoey
Michael Crichton was a Science Fiction writer, not a scientist. His words deserve as much credibility as any other lay person.