Climate & religion

[Maeght]

Most of you are having a meme problem. Your fondly held beliefs are being challenged and you just don't want to let go.

Take a look in the mirror Sriram.

Your thesis doesn't stand up.

[Gordon]

4. Whoever survives the climate change, they will unite under one common philosophy/religion.  I have no doubts on that.  By then wisdom would have dawned, I hope.

I think you over-estimate the survival of religion in the centuries to come.

Not so long ago Christianity was a highly (and perhaps the most) influential part of society here in the UK (keeping Catholics off the throne etc) but is now in decline in that, in my view and experience, its relevance and ability to intrude into current daily living and to influence social attitudes, since compliance is no longer mandatory or can be imposed, has receded to the extent that if you don't want Christianity then you don't have to engage with it, and nor do you have to treat its core beliefs with any special status. As the result of generational change many now are 'unchurched', where Christianity is something that other people do and churches are no more than interesting and impressive historical and cultural curiosities that are nice to visit now and then - but that is all!

In the short term it seems to me unlikely that the likes of Islam or Judaism will go down the same route any time soon, since currently these religions are in a sense more influential and, dare I say, intrusive to those born into families and cultures that practise these traditions - but Christianity was in the same position here in the UK not so long since so perhaps, maybe centuries in the future, there may be a tipping point for these religions too.

[Stranger]

Most of you are having a meme problem. Your fondly held beliefs are being challenged and you just don't want to let go.

Thanks for the laugh.

• Contrary to the misinformation on your blog, memes are not generally a problem.
  
• Your rather silly assertions are not challenging.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think you over-estimate the survival of religion in the centuries to come.

Not so long ago Christianity was a highly (and perhaps the most) influential part of society here in the UK (keeping Catholics off the throne etc) but is now in decline in that, in my view and experience, its relevance and ability to intrude into current daily living and to influence social attitudes, since compliance is no longer mandatory or can be imposed, has receded to the extent that if you don't want Christianity then you don't have to engage with it, and nor do you have to treat its core beliefs with any special status. As the result of generational change many now are 'unchurched', where Christianity is something that other people do and churches are no more than interesting and impressive historical and cultural curiosities that are nice to visit now and then - but that is all!

In the short term it seems to me unlikely that the likes of Islam or Judaism will go down the same route any time soon, since currently these religions are in a sense more influential and, dare I say, intrusive to those born into families and cultures that practise these traditions - but Christianity was in the same position here in the UK not so long since so perhaps, maybe centuries in the future, there may be a tipping point for these religions too.

Gordon

As long as you are prepared to accept that non engagement with Christianity has been the case for several decades and is the result of apatheism and not some intellectual masterstroke by Dawkins or Hitchens then I tend to agree.

Ìf what you say then is the case then the state of the secular society you peddle as the new world order is the result of that lack of engagement and then you are into the territory of say comparing the triumph of equal marraige with the brexit result as the greatest typifier of the secular state. If you back track and blame brexit as christian then you undo your thesis of the lack of christian influence.

As for the rest I find ithe symphonic intellectual flatus of your post warms the mood if not the mind.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think you over-estimate the survival of religion in the centuries to come.

In the short term it seems to me unlikely that the likes of Islam or Judaism will go down the same route any time soon, since currently these religions are in a sense more influential and, dare I say, intrusive to those born into families and cultures that practise these traditions - but Christianity was in the same position here in the UK not so long since so perhaps, maybe centuries in the future, there may be a tipping point for these religions too.

One wonders why you havent included a possible future decline of atheism here.

What for you guarantees the triumph of atheism?

And would it be a triumph since its success has been down to apathy so far?

[Gordon]

One wonders why you havent included a possible future decline of atheism here.

What for you guarantees the triumph of atheism?

And would it be a triumph since its success has been down to apathy so far?

You should try thinking a little more, Vlad: it has been pointed out to you, very often at that, that atheism isn't comparable with organised religion since there is nothing much to organise around such as holy books, dogma and rituals or the various religions.

Whether or not there are more or fewer atheists in, say, 150 years time is probably unknowable since the number of atheists currently isn't known as far as I'm aware - you can count attendances at mosques, chapels, churches and synagogues but where would you count the atheists?. Nor am I looking to 'guarantee the triumph of atheism', so you need to be careful with all that straw even at this time of year in the northern hemisphere.

[Gordon]

Gordon

As long as you are prepared to accept that non engagement with Christianity has been the case for several decades and is the result of apatheism and not some intellectual masterstroke by Dawkins or Hitchens then I tend to agree.

I simply observed the decline in Christian affiliation in the UK and didn't mention either of those two gentlemen: you really do need to start reading for comprehension, Vlad.

Ìf what you say then is the case then the state of the secular society you peddle as the new world order is the result of that lack of engagement and then you are into the territory of say comparing the triumph of equal marraige with the brexit result as the greatest typifier of the secular state. If you back track and blame brexit as christian then you undo your thesis of the lack of christian influence.

I'm not comparing anything nor attempting to conflate 'equal marriage' (or as I call it 'marriage'), Brexit and Christianity: I can only assume you've had your random sentence generator repaired and have inadvertently left it on the gibberish setting.

As for the rest I find ithe symphonic intellectual flatus of your post warms the mood if not the mind.

Smashing.

[Udayana]

The question that needs to be answered is:

How can the behaviour of sufficient numbers of humans be changed over the next 12 years to avoid global catastrophe due to climate change and pollution in the 22nd century. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I simply observed the decline in Christian affiliation in the UK and didn't mention either of those two gentlemen: you really do need to start reading for comprehension, Vlad.

I'm not comparing anything nor attempting to conflate 'equal marriage' (or as I call it 'marriage'), Brexit and Christianity: I can only assume you've had your random sentence generator repaired and have inadvertently left it on the gibberish setting.

Smashing.

Funny then that equal marriage is suggested as a triumph of declining religion but any negative in society has nothing to do with secularism and the forces which drive it.

Actually the attitude of secularists and atheists on this forum is fucking laughable.

[Sriram]

Noone that I know takes science as a philosophy of life; it is a tool that we use to gain better knowledge and what point would there be in ignoring knowledge ?  Rather than taking the science too seriously I think the opposite is true, we don't take the findings of science seriously enough and that is why we are facing an ecological apocalypse in the near to medium future.  Since the days of the Kyoto agreement, science has been warning that our trajectory is unsustainable and needs to change, and yet year after year our atmospheric carbon levels continue to rise remorselessly.  We ignore the science, because it disturbs our comfortable world view, because at the end of the day, we want to carry on, business as usual.  A head in the sand approach will reap its terrible rewards in the end.

That is not true.

Many people, especially in the west, do not use science as just a tool. They take its inherent materialism very seriously.   Science teaches that we are just accidental products of evolution.  Life is just an emergent property of organic molecules. Life has no purpose or meaning. There is no guiding principle or direction to life. Morality is just a matter of social agreement.

The entire world view becomes ego centric and 'we can do anything we want'.  No one to question except the courts. 

All these are very serious philosophical views of life. They can influence and modify our thinking, priorities and values dramatically.

[Sriram]

Why no doubt ? I would have considerable doubt about that, the predictions are so uncertain.  History teaches us that civilisations rise and fall, and then new civilisations rise from the ashes.  Our civilisation has risen to a far higher degree than any previous one, and as they say, the higher you climb, the harder you will fall.  Our downfall will be more thorough and final than all previous collapses.  The goths sacking Rome did not have nuclear weapons; we do.  The ancient Assyrians carved their knowledge into stone; ours resides in Californian server farms and suchlike, our knowledge will be lost and any future humanity will be starting effectively from scratch all over again.

Civilizations have risen and fallen. But right through history we can see a slow move towards integration. There have been many empires that have united different geographical areas. But the only emotional link built across geographical boundaries, national barriers and all other forms of division, is religion.

Religion will certainly survive regardless of how many people die out. It may not be Christianity or Islam or Hinduism.  But a common form of viewing life as more than the material life, will continue. In this, certain forms of secular spirituality that we see today will probably continue to yield some influence among the surviving folks. This is what I mean by one common religion and philosophy. 
 

[Gordon]

Funny then that equal marriage is suggested as a triumph of declining religion but any negative in society has nothing to do with secularism and the forces which drive it.

I'd say marriage reform is more accurately described as the triumph of equality over discrimination.

Actually the attitude of secularists and atheists on this forum is fucking laughable.

Only to the easily amused.

[Enki]

Sriram,

Why not get rid of the chip on your shoulder appertaining to the evils of science, and actually put your considerable talents to sensible and practical use, instead of bolstering your myopic vision by shallow assertion, utter distortion and a liberal sprinkling of assorted unjustified prejudicial statements? You would achieve so much more.

Perhaps, for instance, instead for decrying the modern period of enlightenment/science as your simplistic start of the world's ills, you might just start to look in your own backyard and have some humility first. See, for instance, the Ruddiman Hypothesis
https://www.humansandnature.org/william-ruddiman-and-the-ruddiman-hypothesis

Certainly in your case such humility might well lead to much more positive thoughts on your part and much less feeling of a 'them and us' approach.  If you really wish to play your small part in unifying the world, then may I suggest that you cease with your selective bias in favour of religions/faiths and your selective negative bias/resentment towards science. I am not averse, as I have said before, to some sort of secular spirituality. But, please, for goodness sake, stop with the arrogance that so often drags your ideas into some sort of facile simplistic haze.

[Sriram]

Sriram,

Why not get rid of the chip on your shoulder appertaining to the evils of science, and actually put your considerable talents to sensible and practical use, instead of bolstering your myopic vision by shallow assertion, utter distortion and a liberal sprinkling of assorted unjustified prejudicial statements? You would achieve so much more.

Perhaps, for instance, instead for decrying the modern period of enlightenment/science as your simplistic start of the world's ills, you might just start to look in your own backyard and have some humility first. See, for instance, the Ruddiman Hypothesis
https://www.humansandnature.org/william-ruddiman-and-the-ruddiman-hypothesis

Certainly in your case such humility might well lead to much more positive thoughts on your part and much less feeling of a 'them and us' approach.  If you really wish to play your small part in unifying the world, then may I suggest that you cease with your selective bias in favour of religions/faiths and your selective negative bias/resentment towards science. I am not averse, as I have said before, to some sort of secular spirituality. But, please, for goodness sake, stop with the arrogance that so often drags your ideas into some sort of facile simplistic haze.

Wow! One of those rare posts where someone has said something nice about me!  Thanks a lot enki!  Very nice of you.

You seem to be under the impression that I am a religious fanatic who hates science...or something like that. Not at all! 

I am myself a science student and enjoy reading up on science and its discoveries. I am not religious even though I do visit some temples now and then.

I am only against the world view and the philosophy of life that science stands for. I am against the materialism and 'believe it if you see it' philosophy that is so common among science enthusiasts.

It is not the discoveries of science but its complete rejection of all non material aspects of life that I question. Its tendency to treat humans as just accidental outcomes of random genetic variations and... Life as just an emergent property of organic molecules, is what I question. 

It is this materialism and mundane view of life that has resulted in irresponsible use of technology. Its the impression that we can get away with or reverse whatever we do, is one of the reasons for the sorry state in which we find ourselves.  The arrogance and illusion of control that science promotes is responsible for most of our ills.

I also of course, believe in secular spirituality that I think is common to all humans (and all life) with religion being just one path to spiritual development. 

Cheers.

Sriram

[torridon]

That is not true.

Many people, especially in the west, do not use science as just a tool. They take its inherent materialism very seriously.   Science teaches that we are just accidental products of evolution.  Life is just an emergent property of organic molecules. Life has no purpose or meaning. There is no guiding principle or direction to life. Morality is just a matter of social agreement.

The entire world view becomes ego centric and 'we can do anything we want'.  No one to question except the courts. 

All these are very serious philosophical views of life. They can influence and modify our thinking, priorities and values dramatically.

Oh dear, such lazy, inexact thinking.  Your complaint, then, is really against materialism, not science.  Science is not a philosophical view of life, it is a tool to help us discern between truth and untruth, or perhaps better, to help us resolve the degrees of uncertainty around empirical claims. To deny science is to deny the innate desire for knowledge.  You shouldn't be making the lazy elision of science with materialism.  We are in the mess now because many seek to justify their science denial  with such trivial arguments - 'we don't like it, so we're not going to believe it' which is all your position boils down to.  We all need to wake up and start being real, our delusions will be the death of us all otherwise.

[torridon]

Religion will certainly survive regardless of how many people die out. It may not be Christianity or Islam or Hinduism.  But a common form of viewing life as more than the material life, will continue. In this, certain forms of secular spirituality that we see today will probably continue to yield some influence among the surviving folks. This is what I mean by one common religion and philosophy.

Again, such lazy thinking.  How can such a bizarre claim ever be justified ?  It is blindingly obvious that if all humans die out then religion will not survive, neither will philanthropy or stock markets or trips to the seaside.  If there are some that survive an extinction event, then the character of the human population going forward will be intimately informed by the particular genomes of the survivors.  Having said that, I'd hazard a guess that new religions would emerge in a sufficiently large survivor population over time, to that extent I'd agree with you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh dear, such lazy, inexact thinking.  Your complaint, then, is really against materialism, not science.  Science is not a philosophical view of life, it is a tool to help us discern between truth and untruth, or perhaps better, to help us resolve the degrees of uncertainty around empirical claims. To deny science is to deny the innate desire for knowledge.  You shouldn't be making the lazy elision of science with materialism.  We are in the mess now because many seek to justify their science denial  with such trivial arguments - 'we don't like it, so we're not going to believe it' which is all your position boils down to.  We all need to wake up and start being real, our delusions will be the death of us all otherwise.

I think we are in a mess now due to the prevailing economics and economic habits established, as part of the enlightenment.....the same habits as lauded by Pinker......climate change denial is down to recent antiintellectualism.

[Maeght]

Wow! One of those rare posts where someone has said something nice about me!  Thanks a lot enki!  Very nice of you.

You seem to be under the impression that I am a religious fanatic who hates science...or something like that. Not at all! 

I am myself a science student and enjoy reading up on science and its discoveries. I am not religious even though I do visit some temples now and then.

I am only against the world view and the philosophy of life that science stands for. I am against the materialism and 'believe it if you see it' philosophy that is so common among science enthusiasts.

It is not the discoveries of science but its complete rejection of all non material aspects of life that I question. Its tendency to treat humans as just accidental outcomes of random genetic variations and... Life as just an emergent property of organic molecules, is what I question. 

It is this materialism and mundane view of life that has resulted in irresponsible use of technology. Its the impression that we can get away with or reverse whatever we do, is one of the reasons for the sorry state in which we find ourselves.  The arrogance and illusion of control that science promotes is responsible for most of our ills.

I also of course, believe in secular spirituality that I think is common to all humans (and all life) with religion being just one path to spiritual development. 

Cheers.

Sriram

Science doesn't reject tye non material but the scientific method can only be applied to things which can be detected measured and invalidated. I'd have thought a science student and enthusiast like you would have understood that.

[torridon]

I think we are in a mess now due to the prevailing economics and economic habits established, as part of the enlightenment.....the same habits as lauded by Pinker......climate change denial is down to recent antiintellectualism.

Agree there is a current wave of antiintellectualism that has come at just the wrong time and doesn't help.  On the other hand your comment about the Enlightenment being responsible for capitalism is merely axe grinding in preference to acknowledging deeper roots to our behaviours.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Agree there is a current wave of antiintellectualism that has come at just the wrong time and doesn't help.  On the other hand your comment about the Enlightenment being responsible for capitalism is merely axe grinding in preference to acknowledging deeper roots to our behaviours.

Pinker suggests that capitalism is a critical component for enlightenment 'progress' unfortunately he doesn't acknowledge the massive pay off in terms of climate change or radical economic control preferring some mystical effect through keeping the enlightenment going.

Can the world sustain Pinkerian progress? Not sure?

[Sriram]

Ok...guys. Thanks for your views.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Agree there is a current wave of antiintellectualism that has come at just the wrong time and doesn't help.  On the other hand your comment about the Enlightenment being responsible for capitalism is merely axe grinding in preference to acknowledging deeper roots to our behaviours.

That contradicts then any notion of enlightenment in which there is a real change in human behaviour as evidenced in its latter stage by contraception.

What fundamental behavioural roots are you referring to to explain enlightenment capitalism?

[torridon]

That contradicts then any notion of enlightenment in which there is a real change in human behaviour as evidenced in its latter stage by contraception.

What fundamental behavioural roots are you referring to to explain enlightenment capitalism?

I'd see the Enlightenment as a step change in understanding but not a fundamental change in human nature and it's my depressing thesis currently that to grasp the depth of the challenge facing us requires us to acknowledge that the environmental crisis is a predictable and inevitable consequence of human nature. We have been honed by natural selection to seek a better tomorrow rather than be satisfied with today and this translates into an unquestioned impulse that growth is good and so any politician arguing for stasis is not going to get elected.  But we live on a finite planet with finite resources and never ending growth is a fantasy belief, and fantasies must crash and burn sooner or later, the underlying maths cares not for our delusions.  Another way in which human nature has been honed is that we instinctively prioritise our nearest and dearest over those further away, but here we are now trying to be global citizens telling ourselves that we value all people equally but that is just another self-congratulatory fantasy.  In Brexit and Trump and Orban and Bolsonaro we see people shying away from internationalist aspirations in the face of migration pressure, looking inward to protect their own slice of the pie from the desperate poor.  I cannot see a way out of this, we are not really compassionate internationalists, we are still tribal people motivated by short term near considerations and do not care enough for those far away to share our comfort zone with them.  Democracy locks us into policy making of the lowest common denominator when to face the challenges ahead we all need to be the best people we could possibly be all of the time.  It's not going to happen,

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You should try thinking a little more, Vlad: it has been pointed out to you, very often at that, that atheism isn't comparable with organised religion

Except when Dawkins, The national Secular society and other various atheist groupings want people to put that down on the census rather than C of E.

That aside, like financial things and organised religion, adherence to atheism can presumably go up and down therefore one should attach no special triumphalism to it's apparent rise.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'd see the Enlightenment as a step change in understanding but not a fundamental change in human nature

And yet it is argued to have changed behaviours.

I kind of get what you are saying though. The people who have generated the ideas of the enlightenment it tend to have reputations of recognising their own gifts of understanding and yet little reputation in applying it leaving the dirty work of translation of the enlightenment to others and leaving those others to take the blame.

A case in point being Dawkins and other new atheists who talk of things like ''consciousness-raising'' but aren't noted for actually instigating anything concrete. That is an example of changing understanding without behaviour being changed.