Climate & religion

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

From the 'Climate change is upon us' thread we can see how fast the world is changing and how horrible the consequences are going to be.  I am sure there is almost nothing we can do to stop the continued warming and extinction of species that we are witnessing.

The point of this thread is to highlight the fact that all these changes have started just when Science & technology were beginning to 'rule' the world and just when we started thinking that we can control our lives and the world. We have managed to mess it up royally.

As long as people were religious and followed traditional lifestyles, the planet was fine. Everything was in harmony. Once humans started thinking that we could understand everything and control everything, we made a sorry mess of it all.

Maybe a religious way of life is more conducive to sensible living.

Just some thoughts.

Cheers.

Sriram

[Roses]

Hi everyone,

From the 'Climate change is upon us' thread we can see how fast the world is changing and how horrible the consequences are going to be.  I am sure there is almost nothing we can do to stop the continued warming and extinction of species that we are witnessing.

The point of this thread is to highlight the fact that all these changes have started just when Science & technology was beginning to 'rule' the world and just when we started thinking that we can control our lives and the world. We have managed to mess it up royally.

As long as people were religious and followed traditional lifestyles, the planet was fine. Everything was in harmony. Once humans started thinking that we could understand everything and control everything, we made a sorry mess of it all.

Maybe a religious way of life is more conducive to sensible living.

Just some thoughts.

Cheers.



Sriram

Goodness knows how you can say equate climate change to people not living a religious life beats me.

[Sriram]

I am talking about self importance, sense of knowledge & control....as opposed to humility, living in harmony and going with the flow. 

[Nearly Sane]

I am talking about self importance, sense of knowledge & control....as opposed to humility, living in harmony and going with the flow.

This seems to be a false dichotomy.

[Roses]

I am talking about self importance, sense of knowledge & control....as opposed to humility, living in harmony and going with the flow.

I still don't see what that has to do with climate change?

[Aruntraveller]

I am talking about self importance, sense of knowledge & control....as opposed to humility, living in harmony and going with the flow.

Oh yes, because religions always encourage us to live in harmony.

Tell me Sririam how are the Christians doing in India currently?

https://tinyurl.com/ycxfct2r

[Sriram]

First point is that the problem with Christians is being over stated. There is no such problem except where conversions are concerned. The major problem that we have had n recent months with Christians is that catholic priests seem to be raping nuns.  Court cases are going on.

Secondly, I am not talking of social problems between different groups. That is a human problem everywhere.  I am talking of humility and living in harmony with nature. Most of the pollution, damage to the eco system and climate change are because we have been playing God for more than a century. We  have focused largely on material well being and creature comfort which is precisely when the decline seems to have started.

[torridon]

Hi everyone,

From the 'Climate change is upon us' thread we can see how fast the world is changing and how horrible the consequences are going to be.  I am sure there is almost nothing we can do to stop the continued warming and extinction of species that we are witnessing.

The point of this thread is to highlight the fact that all these changes have started just when Science & technology were beginning to 'rule' the world and just when we started thinking that we can control our lives and the world. We have managed to mess it up royally.

As long as people were religious and followed traditional lifestyles, the planet was fine. Everything was in harmony. Once humans started thinking that we could understand everything and control everything, we made a sorry mess of it all.

Maybe a religious way of life is more conducive to sensible living.

Just some thoughts.

Cheers.

Sriram

I think the problem is more profound than a simple apportionment of blame to the growth of science or to the decline in religion would suggest.  The roots of our downfall have been there all along, the science and the tech merely came along and magnified our abilities for both creation and destruction. Human nature evolved in a time when the world was for all intents and purpose, unlimited. The palaeolithic hunter needing food to feed his family would not have considered wider ecological issues. When we turned farmers, we cleared forests without any concern for biodiversity loss, there was always more forest elsewhere anyway.  And we can trace global warming back to that time, since the beginning of the Holocene we have been gradually reducing the planet's natural carbon storage mechanism through deforestation.  When the Victorians discovered coal it was inevitable that we would exploit it and add to the problem.  This is at the heart of human nature, accounting for both our meteoric rise and our soon to be crash and burn, two sides of the same coin, we exploit resources with great ingenuity with a view to medium and short term gain, but we have little instinctive regard for wider considerations. Similarly, if I saw a child of mine being brutalised in Syria, I would be on the next plane out there. However, I see someone else's child suffering in Syria, and I don't go.  We evolved a nature that prospered in small knit tribal groups with little regard for the wider picture; we didn't evolve to be global citizens and that is what we are now faced with having to try to become.

[Nearly Sane]

First point is that the problem with Christians is being over stated. There is no such problem except where conversions are concerned. The major problem that we have had n recent months with Christians is that catholic priests seem to be raping nuns.  Court cases are going on.

Secondly, I am not talking of social problems between different groups. That is a human problem everywhere.  I am talking of humility and living in harmony with nature. Most of the pollution, damage to the eco system and climate change are because we have been playing God for more than a century. We  have focused largely on material well being and creature comfort which is precisely when the decline seems to have started.

So you would be happy not to have cured smallpox? We've always challenged the environment. That is effectively what we do. Previously it kept us in check but with advances in science, not a change in our attitudes, we raised life expectancy which allowed for a massive rise in overall population. There isn't Science vs religion - it's simply what we are. Attempting to boil it down to this dichotomy is simplistic, and ignores that Science and Religion are not separate. One's a process, the other a collection of worldviews, some of which might be classified as 'living in harmony' (Which is a vague idea which contains an element of begging the question), but many not. You can have a religion and be a scientist. You can have no religion and 'live in harmony'. You can be religious and think you can play God, or think you are 'special'

The main change over the last hundred years is that progress became exponential. This is a complex phenomenon due to an array of factors but it's not because we have changed, nor because our attitudes have changed. We are the same mix that we ever were but there are more of us, and we have bigger toys.

[Roses]

So you would be happy not to have cured smallpox? We've always challenged the environment. That is effectively what we do. Previously it kept us in check but with advances in science, not a change in our attitudes, we raised life expectancy which allowed for a massive rise in overall population. There isn't Science vs religion - it's simply what we are. Attempting to boil it down to this dichotomy is simplistic, and ignores that Science and Religion are not separate. One's a process, the other a collection of worldviews, some of which might be classified as 'living in harmony' (Which is a vague idea which contains an element of begging the question), but many not. You can have a religion and be a scientist. You can have no religion and 'live in harmony'. You can be religious and think you can play God, or think you are 'special'

The main change over the last hundred years is that progress became exponential. This is a complex phenomenon due to an array of factors but it's not because we have changed, nor because our attitudes have changed. We are the same mix that we ever were but there are more of us, and we have bigger toys.

I agree.

[Sriram]

So you would be happy not to have cured smallpox? We've always challenged the environment. That is effectively what we do. Previously it kept us in check but with advances in science, not a change in our attitudes, we raised life expectancy which allowed for a massive rise in overall population. There isn't Science vs religion - it's simply what we are. Attempting to boil it down to this dichotomy is simplistic, and ignores that Science and Religion are not separate. One's a process, the other a collection of worldviews, some of which might be classified as 'living in harmony' (Which is a vague idea which contains an element of begging the question), but many not. You can have a religion and be a scientist. You can have no religion and 'live in harmony'. You can be religious and think you can play God, or think you are 'special'

The main change over the last hundred years is that progress became exponential. This is a complex phenomenon due to an array of factors but it's not because we have changed, nor because our attitudes have changed. We are the same mix that we ever were but there are more of us, and we have bigger toys.

I would agree with that.

But my point is about a humble and harmonious lifestyle that religions usually teach as against a ego centric and comfort oriented life style that science and technology generate.

Technology was not an accident. It was created and developed with the intent of greater comfort, prosperity and ease. So, a materialistic intent cannot be denied.  More of everything.  As someone said...'there is enough for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed'.  Gluttony and waste like every civilization at its peak but this time the consequences are global. 

[Nearly Sane]

I would agree with that.

But my point is about a humble and harmonious lifestyle that religions usually teach as against a ego centric and comfort oriented life style that science and technology generate.

Technology was not an accident. It was created and developed with the intent of greater comfort, prosperity and ease. So, a materialistic intent cannot be denied.  More of everything.  As someone said...'there is enough for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed'.  Gluttony and waste like every civilization at its peak but this time the consequences are global.

Then you aren't agreeing - science and technology don't generate life styles, people do. Science has nothing to do with being egocentric.

Is living in a humble harmonious life dying of smallpox?


It isn't technology and it isn't science. And arguably there are few things more egocentric than thinking the universe was created for you which large swathes of religious though covers.

If you are agreeing with me, then you will agree that your OP was a simplistic and incorrect attempt to see things as a dichotomy between two completely different things.

[Sriram]

Then you aren't agreeing - science and technology don't generate life styles, people do. Science has nothing to do with being egocentric.

Is living in a humble harmonious life dying of smallpox?


It isn't technology and it isn't science. And arguably there are few things more egocentric than thinking the universe was created for you which large swathes of religious though covers.

If you are agreeing with me, then you will agree that your OP was a simplistic and incorrect attempt to see things as a dichotomy between two completely different things.

No..don't get hyper all of a sudden!!!

Science and technology did not develop in a vacuum. They were developed by egocentric attitudes and they further fed the ego centric attitudes.  Human ego  and the power of science and tech developed side by side. Each feeding on the other.  'Playing God' was largely due to the power that people thought they had, due to science and technology.   It did not develop in a vacuum.

 

[Roses]

No..don't get hyper all of a sudden!!!

Science and technology did not develop in a vacuum. They were developed by egocentric attitudes and they further fed the ego centric attitudes.  Human ego  and the power of science and tech developed side by side. Each feeding on the other.  'Playing God' was largely due to the power that people thought they had, due to science and technology.   It did not develop in a vacuum.

You would obviously prefer humans to be still living in caves!

[Nearly Sane]

No..don't get hyper all of a sudden!!!

Science and technology did not develop in a vacuum. They were developed by egocentric attitudes and they further fed the ego centric attitudes.  Human ego  and the power of science and tech developed side by side. Each feeding on the other.  'Playing God' was largely due to the power that people thought they had, due to science and technology.   It did not develop in a vacuum.

I'm not hyper at all. No one has said anything about things developing in a vacuum. The idea that science somehow represents human ego and religion represents some undefined idea of living in harmony is at the moment something you have simply asserted. Further you haven't addressed the obvious points that science can be done by religous people , and that not being egocentric can be done by non religious people. Nor have you addressed that science and religion are different categories of things. Nor have you addressed whether living in harmony means not developing the smallpox vaccine.

You need to stop personalising posts and deal with the arguments.

[Dicky Underpants]

No..don't get hyper all of a sudden!!!

Science and technology did not develop in a vacuum. They were developed by egocentric attitudes and they further fed the ego centric attitudes.  Human ego  and the power of science and tech developed side by side. Each feeding on the other.  'Playing God' was largely due to the power that people thought they had, due to science and technology.   It did not develop in a vacuum.

As NS has pointed out, you are raising a false dichotomy between science and religion in order to sustain your hypothesis. The matter is much more complex than that. Religion has certainly had its own part to play in causing the imbalance of nature. In the Abrahamic religions this can clearly be traced back to the text in the first chapter of Genesis:

And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."

(Genesis 1:28) How many environmental ills have arisen from a literalist interpretation of that text! A great deal of the  thrust of American attitudes to the natural world can be traced back to the pressure of the Christian fundamentalism on the voting patterns of the public there.
Hinduism is hardly guiltless in another regard. "Going with the flow" may be all very well, but it has been an excuse for the horrors of the caste system and the belief that people's suffering is the result of their personal karma. Who cares that the Untouchables got smallpox? So long as the Brahmins didn't get it....No doubt matters have changed greatly in some respects, and this has been due in many cases to the developments of science.
I believe Hindu holy men still drink the waters of the Ganges in its most polluted areas, and encourage others to do the same. Do that sort of thing often enough, and you certainly will "go with the flow", when dysentery and cholera prompt you to endless visits to the lavatory.

As regards the Ganges, I believe it is in fact becoming devoid of large fish apart from imported species such as the Tilapia, which can endure a high level of pollution. The pollution does indeed result from the uncontrolled emissions of technology in many cases, but the solution does not lie in demonising science - it requires properly monitored use of the polluting industries  - and in using science to build effective sewage treatment plants.
In the meantime, it helps the environmental health nor individual human health not one iota for deference to be given to ignorant sadhus who drink filthy polluted water, and expect the rest of the world to say "How holy!"

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As NS has pointed out, you are raising a false dichotomy between science and religion in order to sustain your hypothesis. The matter is much more complex than that. Religion has certainly had its own part to play in causing the imbalance of nature. In the Abrahamic religions this can clearly be traced back to the text in the first chapter of Genesis:
 (Genesis 1:28) How many environmental ills have arisen from a literalist interpretation of that text! A great deal of the  thrust of American attitudes to the natural world can be traced back to the pressure of the Christian fundamentalism on the voting patterns of the public there.
Hinduism is hardly guiltless in another regard. "Going with the flow" may be all very well, but it has been an excuse for the horrors of the caste system and the belief that people's suffering is the result of their personal karma. Who cares that the Untouchables got smallpox? So long as the Brahmins didn't get it....No doubt matters have changed greatly in some respects, and this has been due in many cases to the developments of science.
I believe Hindu holy men still drink the waters of the Ganges in its most polluted areas, and encourage others to do the same. Do that sort of thing often enough, and you certainly will "go with the flow", when dysentery and cholera prompt you to endless visits to the lavatory.

As regards the Ganges, I believe it is in fact becoming devoid of large fish apart from imported species such as the Tilapia, which can endure a high level of pollution. The pollution does indeed result from the uncontrolled emissions of technology in many cases, but the solution does not lie in demonising science - it requires properly monitored use of the polluting industries  - and in using science to build effective sewage treatment plants.
In the meantime, it helps the environmental health nor individual human health not one iota for deference to be given to ignorant sadhus who drink filthy polluted water, and expect the rest of the world to say "How holy!"

By far the greatest imbalance was caused by the enlightenment and the economics that followed on from that.

Your laying the blame at the door of abrahamic religion is laughable.

It was the so called enlightenment.

[jeremyp]

I would agree with that.

But my point is about a humble and harmonious lifestyle that religions usually teach as against a ego centric and comfort oriented life style that science and technology generate.

Technology was not an accident. It was created and developed with the intent of greater comfort, prosperity and ease. So, a materialistic intent cannot be denied.  More of everything.  As someone said...'there is enough for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed'.  Gluttony and waste like every civilization at its peak but this time the consequences are global.

When was this alleged humble and harmonious lifestyle? When religions are in charge, it tends to result in the deaths of anybody who disagrees with the people running things.

Before technology most people died before the age of about five, the leading cause of death in women was child birth and you couldn’t drink the water for fear of cholera. The way to fix the problems we have now is not to turn the clock back but to embrace technology because it is the only thing capable of saving us.

[Nearly Sane]

By far the greatest imbalance was caused by the enlightenment and the economics that followed on from that.

Your laying the blame at the door of abrahamic religion is laughable.

It was the so called enlightenment.

Vlad supports no smallpox vaccine.

[Gordon]

By far the greatest imbalance was caused by the enlightenment and the economics that followed on from that.

Your laying the blame at the door of abrahamic religion is laughable.

It was the so called enlightenment.

Of course it was, Vlad - no doubt then you would be enthusiastic to turn the clock back?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad supports no smallpox vaccine.

I'll bet you a pound to a piece of shit I don't.
And as I'm a sportsman I'll let you keep the bets in your mouth for safekeeping.

[Nearly Sane]

I'll bet you a pound to a piece of shit I don't.
And as I'm a sportsman I'll let you keep the bets in your mouth for safekeeping.

  And the same applies to you stating that Dicky placed the blame on the Abrahamic religions. Maybe if you don't want to be misrepresented, you shouldn't misrepresent others.

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

1. Most of the ills of today in terms of climate change, plastics, pollution, species extinction etc. are caused almost directly by science and technology. There is no doubt about that at all. There is a direct link between the growth of technology and depletion of resources and damage to the eco system.

2. Science and technology displaced religion by way of disproving many biblical myths, leading to increase in atheistic beliefs. This lead to materialism, comfort mindedness and 'make merry while you can'  attitude.

3. Exploiting natural resources was made easier by science & technology. Depleting resources and the nonsensical hope of colonizing other planets lead to space travel and a feeling that 'we can always move out' if the earth became unlivable.   

4. If atheism had not become the bedrock of science in the late 19th and 20th centuries, materialism and comfort seeking would not have been as widespread as they became. The sense of power over our environment would not have been the same. 

5. Religion and a belief in God and after-life could have provided a greater sense of responsibility in the way sci & tech were used. 

6. Medicines and other conveniences have been developed long before modern science (and materialism) came along. So, development is not the issue. Its the irresponsible attitude accompanying the development that makes the difference.

Cheers.

Sriram

[Roses]

Hi everyone,

1. Most of the ills of today in terms of climate change, plastics, pollution, species extinction etc. are caused almost directly by science and technology. There is no doubt about that at all. There is a direct link between the growth of technology and depletion of resources and damage to the eco system.

2. Science and technology displaced religion by way of disproving many biblical myths, leading to increase in atheistic beliefs. This lead to materialism, comfort mindedness and 'make merry while you can'  attitude.

3. Exploiting natural resources was made easier by science & technology. Depleting resources and the nonsensical hope of colonizing other planets lead to space travel and a feeling that 'we can always move out' if the earth became unlivable.   

4. If atheism had not become the bedrock of science in the late 19th and 20th centuries, materialism and comfort seeking would not have been as widespread as they became. The sense of power over our environment would not have been the same. 

5. Religion and a belief in God and after-life could have provided a greater sense of responsibility in the way sci & tech were used. 

6. Medicines and other conveniences have been developed long before modern science (and materialism) came along. So, development is not the issue. Its the irresponsible attitude accompanying the development that makes the difference.

Cheers.

Sriram

Ehhhhhhhhhhhh? You require a scientific approach  to develop medicines.

[Maeght]

It is of course not science itself which has led to pollution etc but the application of science. Human nature, regardless of religious beliefs, has led to exploitation of natural resources and the pursuit of profit. In the Industrial Revolution this was being carried out by men who held religious beliefs on the whole not atheists. Early scientists were on the whole religious people. Your idea that religious beliefs bring some sort of harmony with nature seems fanciful to me. Our problems have arisen due to a lack of understanding of the effects of industrialisation. I don't think people had this 'make merry while you can' approach as this suggests people knew of the consequences but ignored them. People saw science and industry as a way of improving people's lives and building a better society, with individuals of course looking to make themselves rich but many, as I say, held religious beliefs. The consequences are only now being understood.