Why I've started to believe that religion is actively dangerous

[Hamilcar]

The funny thing is that global warming/climate change is in itself an actively dangerous religious cult. Unlike Christianity it is very aggressive in trying to impose its fanatic doomsday belief upon others, kinda like ISIS.

Oh, look! The village idiot is back! 

[Hamilcar]

I wish there was a way for each Languish poster to designate one other poster who just isn't allowed to post in their threads.

That would really be great.

That hurts.

You can *always* post in my threads.

[lustindarkness]

The funny thing is that global warming/climate change is in itself an actively dangerous religious cult. Unlike Christianity it is very aggressive in trying to impose its fanatic doomsday belief upon others, kinda like ISIS.

Oh, look! The village idiot is back! 

We would never call you that Hami.

[Berkut]

I think the discussion has strayed from where my original point was, which is fine of course, but I want to get back to it myself.

The issue is not about whether Inhofe is really a Christian or not - it is about the particular concept of responsibility and religion, and how the common view of a deity as a patriarchical figure with infinte power and a plan influences how humans think.

If I believed, as many Christians do, that God exists, is infinitely (or effectively infinitely) powerful, and he has a plan for the world, then it certainly follows that we can be somewhat assured that our own actions are not going to ruin that plan in the whole. Sure, we can argue biblical interpretation of Inhofe's quote versus the quotes that call on humans to be stewards, but I don't think Inhofe, for example, would argue that he is NOT being a steward - of course he would argue that the stewardship demand is made in the context of this overall plan.

And if that plan does not include human activity warming up the planet until it becomes inhabitable, then he is right to dismiss concerns about human global warming. It either cannot happen, because as he says god would not allow it, or even if it does happen, it can't be so bad since it would still be part of God's plan anyway.

This is my point - that belief in a deity like this necessitates a certain abjection of responsibility. THere is a god out there who is, at the end of the day, the final authority on what is going to happen at a global scale, and concerning oneself about the idea that humans could actually, on their own accord, destroy Gods creation is in fact the height of hubris, and a rejection of the humility that faith in an omniscient god demands.

[The Brain]

I wish there was a way for each Languish poster to designate one other poster who just isn't allowed to post in their threads.

That would really be great.

That hurts.

You can *always* post in my threads.

Thanks!

[The Minsky Moment]

Hey, they widely regard themselves as "one of the world's leading think tanks on global warming policy issues," not spelling.

That's Timmy's gig.  He should sue.

[frunk]

I'm not sure all Christians (and certainly not all religious) would agree with that logic chain.  There's the extent to which free will is a factor, exactly what is considered "God's creation" and whether God is benevolent enough to save us from our own screw-ups.

[viper37]

If we state that Christianity is the result of reading the Bible it's pretty clear that Inhofe isn't remotely Christian.  It wasn't a matter of looking at what the entire gospel says, just an outright declaration of the truth of Christian thought with no evidence.  Just because someone claims their belief is based on Christianity doesn't mean it is.

That doesn't really matter if he's Christian or not.  He's using his religion to justify public policies and that is scary to me.

Look - Inhofe's claim is stupid.  But lots of people have believed in stupid ideas for lots of stupid reasons.  Just because someone has believed in a stupid idea, it doesn't invalidate the entirety of whatever their justification.  The idea of the division of powers isn't invalidated just because some racists used "state rights" to justify racism.  Science isn't invalidated just because some people used it as a justification for eugenics.  And religion isn't invalidated because some people try to use it as justification for ignoring global warming.

While I am certainly not pro-religion, I agree with you.  However, I think religion must be kept as far away as possible from government and I believe it is not the State's mission to promote religion in any way, especially when it comes to extremist beliefs.

[viper37]

And it's the same about sexual orientation.  You're free to bang whomever you want to bang.  We don't have to see it in public for you to be free.

You know that sexual orientation goes beyond "whomever you bang", right?

Really?  Reading you guys here I thought it was all there is...

[Berkut]

I'm not sure all Christians (and certainly not all religious) would agree with that logic chain.  There's the extent to which free will is a factor, exactly what is considered "God's creation" and whether God is benevolent enough to save us from our own screw-ups.

It doesn't matter that they don't ALL agree - enough DO agree that people like Inhofe get elected and make policy based on those beliefs.

[The Brain]

I think the discussion has strayed from where my original point was, which is fine of course, but I want to get back to it myself.

The issue is not about whether Inhofe is really a Christian or not - it is about the particular concept of responsibility and religion, and how the common view of a deity as a patriarchical figure with infinte power and a plan influences how humans think.

If I believed, as many Christians do, that God exists, is infinitely (or effectively infinitely) powerful, and he has a plan for the world, then it certainly follows that we can be somewhat assured that our own actions are not going to ruin that plan in the whole. Sure, we can argue biblical interpretation of Inhofe's quote versus the quotes that call on humans to be stewards, but I don't think Inhofe, for example, would argue that he is NOT being a steward - of course he would argue that the stewardship demand is made in the context of this overall plan.

And if that plan does not include human activity warming up the planet until it becomes inhabitable, then he is right to dismiss concerns about human global warming. It either cannot happen, because as he says god would not allow it, or even if it does happen, it can't be so bad since it would still be part of God's plan anyway.

This is my point - that belief in a deity like this necessitates a certain abjection of responsibility. THere is a god out there who is, at the end of the day, the final authority on what is going to happen at a global scale, and concerning oneself about the idea that humans could actually, on their own accord, destroy Gods creation is in fact the height of hubris, and a rejection of the humility that faith in an omniscient god demands.

The wider issue is the merit or otherwise of making policy based on baseless assertion. Baseless assertion exists in all fields but in religion it is a dominant concept.

[Berkut]

The wider issue is the merit or otherwise of making policy based on baseless assertion. Baseless assertion exists in all fields but in religion it is a dominant concept.

Certainly religion has no monopoly on stupid ideas.

The problem with stupid religious ideas is that they are not really amenable to reason among the religious. Inhofe's position, while obviously moronic for anyone not sharing his religion, is very defensible, even logically more consistent in some ways than Beebs position, for those who do share it.

Such is, by definition, the very nature of faith.

[The Minsky Moment]

If I were to haphazard a theory why Christianity succeeded initially, it's because it was in fact millenarist and populist. All other religions and cults I mentioned were fairly elitist - Mithraism appealed to the army, Neoplatonism and Neopythogoreism required a significant education to process its concepts; Eleusian and Orphic mysteries were, as the name implies, mystery cults, working like freemasonry today. They all were based on self-perfection through gnosis, contemplation, insight, the "autonomic" salvation etc. They were like today's yoga or transcendental meditation classes - clearly, not something for the poor. So they appealed to middle and upper classes.

Early Christianity, on the other hand, promised a complete destruction of the existing world order within the lifetime of the current generation, and "heteronomic" salvaton. It's a little wonder it appealed to the masses.

Early Christianity (50-200 AD) was a niche religion and didn't really have special appeal to the masses.  It took quite a long time for there to be a significant following.  Christianity was a disproportionately an urban phenomenon and it appears was led by literate property owners, who would also convert their retainers and clients.  The very extensive evidence of "gnostic" type belief and practices in early Christianities refutes a fundamental opposition to neoplatonic thinking and perfectionism.  Indeed as late as the 4th century, those concepts are still very much present as indicated by Arius and Arianism.

[The Minsky Moment]

The wider issue is the merit or otherwise of making policy based on baseless assertion. Baseless assertion exists in all fields but in religion it is a dominant concept.

Certainly religion has no monopoly on stupid ideas.

The problem with stupid religious ideas is that they are not really amenable to reason among the religious. Inhofe's position, while obviously moronic for anyone not sharing his religion, is very defensible, even logically more consistent in some ways than Beebs position, for those who do share it.

Such is, by definition, the very nature of faith.

But BB is right - imperviousness to reason is a trait that can and does exist independent of religious belief.  If religion didn't exist and Inhofe was an atheist, he would still be equally obtuse.

[Malthus]

I think the discussion has strayed from where my original point was, which is fine of course, but I want to get back to it myself.

The issue is not about whether Inhofe is really a Christian or not - it is about the particular concept of responsibility and religion, and how the common view of a deity as a patriarchical figure with infinte power and a plan influences how humans think.

If I believed, as many Christians do, that God exists, is infinitely (or effectively infinitely) powerful, and he has a plan for the world, then it certainly follows that we can be somewhat assured that our own actions are not going to ruin that plan in the whole. Sure, we can argue biblical interpretation of Inhofe's quote versus the quotes that call on humans to be stewards, but I don't think Inhofe, for example, would argue that he is NOT being a steward - of course he would argue that the stewardship demand is made in the context of this overall plan.

And if that plan does not include human activity warming up the planet until it becomes inhabitable, then he is right to dismiss concerns about human global warming. It either cannot happen, because as he says god would not allow it, or even if it does happen, it can't be so bad since it would still be part of God's plan anyway.

This is my point - that belief in a deity like this necessitates a certain abjection of responsibility. THere is a god out there who is, at the end of the day, the final authority on what is going to happen at a global scale, and concerning oneself about the idea that humans could actually, on their own accord, destroy Gods creation is in fact the height of hubris, and a rejection of the humility that faith in an omniscient god demands.

On the contrary, this particular religion contains myths in which human actions directly lead to widespread destruction at the hands of a vengeful God - Noah's Flood, for example.    Or Sodom and Gehmorrah.

Debatable which myth would apply to Florida's impending immersion in the sea ...