08.14.06
Posted in faith at 9:04 am by Brandon
This frustrates me.
It’s not so much that Pat Robertson was once firmly against the environmental wingnuts, and now he’s talking about how global warming is some huge problem. Pat, if he wishes, is allowed to change his mind.
The problem, as I see it, isn’t so much Pat’s newly found position in support of the environment and the dangers of global warming. The problem, rather, is what Pat needed to change his mind. Here’s an excerpt from the above-linked article:
Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson said on Thursday the wave of scorching temperatures across the United States has converted him into a believer in global warming.
“We really need to address the burning of fossil fuels,” Robertson said on his “700 Club” broadcast. “It is getting hotter, and the icecaps are melting and there is a buildup of carbon dioxide in the air.”
This week the heat index, the perceived temperature based on both air temperatures and humidity, reached 115 Fahrenheit in some regions of the U.S. East Coast. The 76-year-old Robertson told viewers that was “the most convincing evidence I’ve seen on global warming in a long time.”
So, let’s be clear. A bevy of REAL scientists have, for the past 20 years or so been very concerned about global warming. They’ve produced a bevy of research, and have made a bevy of converts from that well done science. But, Pat wasn’t convinced by the liberal academic elitists.
No. Pat Robertson was convinced by the flimsiest, most biased, and generally most flawed of any evidence. Pat was converted to the “global warming cause” because he was hot. It’s concerning, I think that people take up this recent change in Pat as something signifying a change in evangelicalism.
It’s not a change in evangelicalism, or Christianity for that matter.
Rather, it’s a sign that the same sorts of attempts to engage with the science that Christians have been at for hundreds of years are still alive and well. For whatever reason, Christians seem to display a contempt for the scientific. Favoring, rather, evidence that supports their previously held assumptions about human and animal behavior, anatomy, the world, and the cosmos.
Rather than seeing a vehicle by which to explore God’s created order, Christians see a scary, out-of-control machine. A machine that is as uncontrollable as it is unholy. Rather, Christians–and their method, judging by Robertson, seems alive and well–tend to rely on their own (unavoidably biased) perceptions.
From this we see new converts to global warming if for no other reason than that it has been hot out.
It leaves me to speculate a few things.
If it were unseasonably cold this winter, will Robertson change his mind about global warming?
If the Pope were to try to walk around the planet, not quite make it, and see only flatness, would he change his mind about the earth being round?
I’m personally glad Pat decided to become a supporter of environmental stewardship. I think it’s great, really. It just concerns me a tad that all it took was a few hundred degree days.
And, perhaps more concerning, why, after seeing pictures and visiting the poor all over the world, are Christians reticent to do anything about it? I mean, we see it, but don’t do much. And, in fact, many times we lend our unwavering support to the very corporate entities that have caused such abject poverty to begin with.
It seems that just like HEARING about the heat isn’t quite enough to an environmentalist make, it’s also not just SEEING poor people that makes people committed to the ideals of eradicating poverty.
I suppose that’s why the verse tells us to sell all we have and give it to the poor, rather than to form a big-ass mission trip to Jamaica, complete with a scheduled beach-day, for the local youth group. We need to experience poverty to care about it.
But, I don’t see Pat Robertson committing himself to a life of poverty anytime soon just to convince himself that we need to be serious about eradicating poverty. I suppose I’ll have to be satisfied with environmental stewardship.
Tags: Poverty, Pat Robertson, Environmentalism, Christianity
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2006/08/14/pat-robertson-environmentalist/trackback/
Posted in faith at 9:04 am by Brandon
This frustrates me.
It’s not so much that Pat Robertson was once firmly against the environmental wingnuts, and now he’s talking about how global warming is some huge problem. Pat, if he wishes, is allowed to change his mind.
The problem, as I see it, isn’t so much Pat’s newly found position in support of the environment and the dangers of global warming. The problem, rather, is what Pat needed to change his mind. Here’s an excerpt from the above-linked article:
Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson said on Thursday the wave of scorching temperatures across the United States has converted him into a believer in global warming.
“We really need to address the burning of fossil fuels,” Robertson said on his “700 Club” broadcast. “It is getting hotter, and the icecaps are melting and there is a buildup of carbon dioxide in the air.”
This week the heat index, the perceived temperature based on both air temperatures and humidity, reached 115 Fahrenheit in some regions of the U.S. East Coast. The 76-year-old Robertson told viewers that was “the most convincing evidence I’ve seen on global warming in a long time.”
So, let’s be clear. A bevy of REAL scientists have, for the past 20 years or so been very concerned about global warming. They’ve produced a bevy of research, and have made a bevy of converts from that well done science. But, Pat wasn’t convinced by the liberal academic elitists.
No. Pat Robertson was convinced by the flimsiest, most biased, and generally most flawed of any evidence. Pat was converted to the “global warming cause” because he was hot. It’s concerning, I think that people take up this recent change in Pat as something signifying a change in evangelicalism.
It’s not a change in evangelicalism, or Christianity for that matter.
Rather, it’s a sign that the same sorts of attempts to engage with the science that Christians have been at for hundreds of years are still alive and well. For whatever reason, Christians seem to display a contempt for the scientific. Favoring, rather, evidence that supports their previously held assumptions about human and animal behavior, anatomy, the world, and the cosmos.
Rather than seeing a vehicle by which to explore God’s created order, Christians see a scary, out-of-control machine. A machine that is as uncontrollable as it is unholy. Rather, Christians–and their method, judging by Robertson, seems alive and well–tend to rely on their own (unavoidably biased) perceptions.
From this we see new converts to global warming if for no other reason than that it has been hot out.
It leaves me to speculate a few things.
If it were unseasonably cold this winter, will Robertson change his mind about global warming?
If the Pope were to try to walk around the planet, not quite make it, and see only flatness, would he change his mind about the earth being round?
I’m personally glad Pat decided to become a supporter of environmental stewardship. I think it’s great, really. It just concerns me a tad that all it took was a few hundred degree days.
And, perhaps more concerning, why, after seeing pictures and visiting the poor all over the world, are Christians reticent to do anything about it? I mean, we see it, but don’t do much. And, in fact, many times we lend our unwavering support to the very corporate entities that have caused such abject poverty to begin with.
It seems that just like HEARING about the heat isn’t quite enough to an environmentalist make, it’s also not just SEEING poor people that makes people committed to the ideals of eradicating poverty.
I suppose that’s why the verse tells us to sell all we have and give it to the poor, rather than to form a big-ass mission trip to Jamaica, complete with a scheduled beach-day, for the local youth group. We need to experience poverty to care about it.
But, I don’t see Pat Robertson committing himself to a life of poverty anytime soon just to convince himself that we need to be serious about eradicating poverty. I suppose I’ll have to be satisfied with environmental stewardship.
Tags: Poverty, Pat Robertson, Environmentalism, Christianity
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2006/08/14/pat-robertson-environmentalist/trackback/
brad said,
August 14, 2006 at 11:47 am
You can trace Christianity’s ignorance of science all the way back to the discovery that the Earth wasn’t the center of the universe being called a heresy by the Church. From there, modernism was born and the church has never caught up.
Recovering said,
August 14, 2006 at 12:38 pm
I’m not convinced that Global Warming is a man-made problem. No doubt that the earth is warming but our understanding of the global climate is in such an infancy stage that any conclusion is difficult to make. It was warmer in the 1930s than it is now. There’s just no rhyme or reason to it.
Anyway, my point was that Pat Robertson has said so many rediculous things over the last couple years that it is very clear that he is either:
a. going senile
b. is becomng swayed by poll numbers almost as much as Mr. Clinton
c. is as addicted to press attention as Jesse Jackson
d. all of the above
I vote D
tracy said,
August 14, 2006 at 2:51 pm
sometimes you just have to experience something for yourself to change. This is what it was for him.
i’m not going to get cynical, sounds like good news to me
sarah said,
August 15, 2006 at 6:41 pm
You had me smiling with this post. Maybe Robertson’s slow acceptance of global warming is a good analogy for our sometimes slow response to other truths…
We need it to smack us in the head before we “get” it.
Chris said,
August 16, 2006 at 11:46 am
Christians and science have had a hard time mixing but I just wanted to point out that not all Christians are oblivious. In fact, its been noted that a larger number of scientists are Christian than previously believed. Also, though you may disagree with their stand take a moment to review Answers In Genesis at http://www.answersingenesis.org where science (The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.) is applied to facts based on what the Bible says.
jeff said,
August 16, 2006 at 5:10 pm
Here’s the problem I have with all this…
If you’re a Pat Robertson, evangelical, ‘Left-Behind’, christian, why would you care about the environment? Doesn’t Pat believe in the rapture and the Armageddon/nuclear war/anti-Christ-gets-his-ass-kicked-by-Jesus end of the world?
So why get all up in arms about global warming?
UNLESS– Pat is planning on running for office again, and needs a ‘liberal’ issue to make him look more centrist…
hmmmm
Kvatch said,
August 16, 2006 at 6:13 pm
Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson said on Thursday the wave of scorching temperatures across the United States has converted him into a believer in global warming.
Nope I think it’s simpler than that. Consider, Robertson has latched onto every sign of the end-times he can find since the coming of the new millenium. I think he’s just gotten it through his head that he may have to wait another thousand years for the second coming, and so he’s now doing what he can to make sure that there are still some Christians around when it happens.
When you think that the end times are nigh, who cares how hot the planet gets.
Art said,
August 17, 2006 at 8:18 am
Hey, maybe this whole global warming thing is just God’s sneaky way of punishing us for being such a lousy, depraved bunch of sinners?
wildwest said,
August 18, 2006 at 1:12 pm
If his “conversion” is genuine (who can tell?), the good news is bittersweet for the rest of us. Remember, “we don’t know that evolution really happened because we weren’t around to see it.” Well, I’m sorry it had to come to this. But we’re about to find out that global warming is real the hard way. And the sooner the Pat Robertsons of this world have the “OMG, what if Al Gore was right and Hal Lindsey was wrong?” experience and get real, the better our chances of averting a *real* catastrophe.
spanders said,
August 21, 2006 at 8:25 pm
interestingly, I’m reading a book by George Lakoff (professor of cognitive science and linguistics) called “Whose Freedom?”, which seems to address some of the issue of why Pat is a convert. Assuming that his motives are what he says they are (it was hot and now I believe) it does reflect Lakoff’s idea of direct (or simple) causality versus systemic causality. Many conservative christians engage in direct causality, which is “it’s hot, so global warming must exist” without understanding the connections between human action and the buildup of greenhouse gasses. While I understand that some do not accept the greenhouse effect, it does seem reasonable to me, as a person who views life through a lens of systemic causality (makes connections between a series of ideas and actions that lead to a result and could be accused of making connections that are not there) that it is reasonable to think that our actions have impact on a vastly complicated system and as such, it seems to be to worth our while to be safe (which has positive implications even if global warming doesn’t exist) than sorry. In discussing ideas with others and trying to be persuasive, it seems useful to identify if a person leans towards direct causality (driving my car isn’t making the globe warmer) or if a person leans towards systemic causality (driving my car is a small part of a whole human experience when added up causes major impact on our environment, which is a complex system). In that way, you can appeal to the nature of that person and shift your method of discussion.
rgmb said,
August 23, 2006 at 8:26 pm
Very well said.
Sean said,
August 25, 2006 at 2:06 am
I’m a pilot. As a pilot, I have also studied meteorology extensively. Despite what Pat Robertson thinks, there is no evidence supporting global warming. Please consider the following:
In order to determine if the temperature of the earth is consistently rising and the theories (read: THEORIES) of the green house effect, etc. are in effect, one must find the average temperature of the planet. The way this is accomplished is that readings are taken at established points on the planet. There are THOUSANDS of these points. The highs and lows are averaged for each point, then, those averages are fed into a computer which then averages those averages. This obviously gives us an AVERAGE temperature for the globe.
These averages are then compared with other averages from past years and when we average these numbers, there appears to be a slight rise: about 1 degree with an over/under of .5 degrees. This process is fundamentally flawed, however because we have only been collecting/been ABLE to compile this data for the last 40 years or so.
That said, how can we then make the conclusion that the earth is quickly becoming dangerously warm? We cannot logically reach that conclusion, because we have no starting basis to compare our “empiracle” evidence.
Also, what most news agencies fail to report is that from one year to the next the temperature is apt to actually go DOWN! Amazing! Against all odds, the earth is actually NOT becoming dangerously hot, rather, we are heading rapidly for an iceage of epic proportions.
Well, I don’t know about you, but I have already sequestered myself in my bombshelter with many gas-powered space heaters, 30 years worth of freeze-dried goods, and a copy of Pat Robertson’s newest book to keep me company. Good luck in the next iceage.
Geoff said,
August 25, 2006 at 11:17 am
That was my first thought!
But it’s not like I pay much attention to what Pat thinks, except maybe to grumble about him occasionally…
Brandon Sipes said,
August 25, 2006 at 4:48 pm
I’m not sure the pope and robertson have too much in common.
Eric said,
August 30, 2006 at 6:31 pm
I guess the thing that bothers me about some of this discussion are some lapses. First, Christians have not been standing idly by about world hunger. Christian, in the name of Jesus and all that, have been tending the world’s hungry and impoverished for millennia. Second, Christians - and every one else - has been badly burned by bad science for over 200 years. That Christians, or anyone else, is slow to accept and then move on the still murky science of global warming shouldn’t be surprizing to anyone. Look to the history of science to show what “all the experts said” about the most bizzare things. Third, what’s better: believing the wrong thing for “well thought out” reasons or believing the right thing for the wrong reasons? I’m with Tracy - I’m glad Roberts is comin’ around.
saint said,
September 4, 2006 at 1:52 am
What better measure of our responsibilities to nature than our own personal comfort level? I mean, it’s not like we’re called to be stewards of God’s creation or anything. /sarcasm
spanders said,
September 4, 2006 at 11:55 pm
Eric,
it could be argued that christianity has, in the name of being fruitful and multiplying, has added to world hunger by fiats of keeping people from birth control and stigmatizing control of birth in whatever form. It could also be argued that religion has attempted to stymie scientific discovery from attempting to claim the world was flat to precluding stem cell research. I am christian and you may not disagree, but I think it’s important to recognize organized religion’s both positive and negative roles in world hunger and scientific discovery so that we can learn from our mistakes.
Sughar said,
September 5, 2006 at 6:30 pm
There is a very strong link between Christianity and the higher studies: physics, mathmatics, philosophy, etc. Modern culture rarily speaks of this fact, but so many advances in science and literature have been due to men seeking to better understand their Creator.
It is ironic that these men and women are held up by modern society to be extraordinary education individuals… except for that little skeleton in the closet, they happen to be Christian. How have we become so disconnected that we can truly accept that the deepest beliefs of a person are something to be ignored? For example, look at Sir Isaac Newton. His religious texts constitute over half the writings produced over his lifetime.
As for Pat Robertson, whatever pursuaded him to be more ecologically minded, I am glad for it. It is more evidence that the winds are changing… perhaps in the future we will stop raping the planet that God has given us.
W. E. Messamore said,
September 20, 2006 at 2:24 pm
I disagree with your claim that Christians have contempt for the scientific. Modern science and mathematics were founded by Christians like Newton, Mendel, Kepler, Boyle, Pascal, Linnaeus, Euler, Dalton, Kelvin, Joule, and Boole.
I also disagree with your claim that the Church doesn’t do anything about poverty. I will agree that we could and should do more, but let’s not be unfair here. The Church gives an astounding amount of its financial resources, time, and energy to send relief, education, and the Gospel to impoverished people around the world.
wildwest said,
September 21, 2006 at 7:24 am
Sounds like you go to a good church.
Kevin said,
September 21, 2006 at 10:55 pm
I disagree with your claim that Christians have contempt for the scientific. Modern science and mathematics were founded by Christians like Newton, Mendel, Kepler, Boyle, Pascal, Linnaeus, Euler, Dalton, Kelvin, Joule, and Boole.
That’s fine, but it doesn’t change how Christians today react to science. Women were leaders in the early church, but that doesn’t change the fact that the thought of women leaders in the church today makes a lot of American Christians shit their pants.
The Church gives an astounding amount of its financial resources, time, and energy to send relief, education, and the Gospel to impoverished people around the world.
It also spends an astounding amount on building church buildings, on providing congregations with coffee and donuts, and on entertaining services.
W. E. Messamore said,
September 22, 2006 at 12:20 am
Kevin,
How would you say Christians react to science today? I know that there are Christians who are irrational and stubbornly cling to misinterpretations of Scripture by ignoring science, just as there are irrational people who subscribe to every other worldview. I just don’t think it’s accurate to make the categorical or even general statement that today’s Christians have contempt for science. Most importantly I think a fundamentalist and orthodox view of Scripture lends itself to a love for science, hence why the scientific explosion happened during an age that was far more religious and took Scripture far more seriously than ours.
I don’t know how we got to women in the Church; that one just kind of came out of left field, but okay… here’s where I will agree with you that bad hermeneutics is responsible for the view that women should not have leadership roles in the Church. There are many New Testament examples of women in leadership roles. Yet I think the problem is not one of being too Fundamentalist, but of misinterpreting the fundamentals and coming to the wrong conclusions about them. And I will add that I can see where they are coming from and I sincerely doubt that for the most part any kind of sexism or male chauvinism is responsible, but that those who oppose women taking roles as deacons or pastors are doing so on a principled basis, but are merely mistaken.
It also spends an astounding amount on building church buildings, on providing congregations with coffee and donuts, and on entertaining services.
As for Church buildings, many people who “wildwest” up there would pejoratively call “good Christians” are members of congregations that meet in their members’ houses to keep overhead costs very low so they can give more to the missions field. It’s very popular among “good Christians” these days, and I’m a huge fan myself. As for coffee, donuts, and entertainment, I’d like to ask what you’d prefer? That we not share food together at all because we could have given it to the poor? That we not spend a penny on musical instruments with which to praise God because we could have given that to a missionary?
I’d begin by saying I doubt you really hold these convictions as much as you’re letting on. I could be wrong, but I bet you drive a nicer car than you need to, own more and nicer clothes than is absolutely necessary, and spend money on luxuries, by which I mean things that you don’t really need to have and could survive without. And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that at all. When you start complaining that Christians share meals together (like someone Else who they happen to worship did when He was on earth) or shouldn’t spend money on sound equipment or instruments to praise God in Church, it begins to border on the absurd.
wildwest said,
September 22, 2006 at 7:39 am
“I think a fundamentalist and orthodox view of Scripture lends itself to a love for science, hence why the scientific explosion happened during an age that was far more religious and took Scripture far more seriously than ours.”
So let me get this straight. Christianity thrived for a thousand years in Europe without the impetus to conduct scientific research until one day the fundamentalist and orthodox scientist Galileo, inspired by a religious outlook and taking Scripture seriously, challenged the scientific understanding of the day and was opposed by… the Church???
Read *A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom* by Andrew Dickson White. http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/whitewtc.html Then we’ll talk. Until then, let me just say I was not being pejorative.
Brandon said,
September 22, 2006 at 2:58 pm
I disagree with your claim that Christians have contempt for the scientific. Modern science and mathematics were founded by Christians like Newton, Mendel, Kepler, Boyle, Pascal, Linnaeus, Euler, Dalton, Kelvin, Joule, and Boole.
Okay. Let’s just get this straight. Your argument is basically that:
1. If great thinkers are Christians then Christians must not have a contempt for the scientific.
2. Great thinkers like Kepler, Euler, Dalton, and Newton were Christians.
3. Therefore, Christians must not have a contempt for science.
Here’s my problem with that logic. I don’t buy premise one. Had your argument been that if there were great scientific thinkers that were Christians, then SOME Christians didn’t have a contempt for science, I think you’d have a flawless argument. BUT, that’s not the claim you’re making.
Rather, you’re arguing that because the eight or so great scientific minds you mentioned were Christians of some sort, that Christians don’t have a contempt for science. Your argument doesn’t work.
I also disagree with your claim that the Church doesn’t do anything about poverty. I will agree that we could and should do more, but let’s not be unfair here. The Church gives an astounding amount of its financial resources, time, and energy to send relief, education, and the Gospel to impoverished people around the world.
If you’re going to disagree with something, disagree with what I said, rather than the straw-man you’re building up just to tear down. I never said the Church doesn’t do ANYTHING about poverty, what I said was this:
There’s a big-ass difference between “not doing anything about” and what I actually said, which was “being reticent to do anything about”. You said yourself, just now, that the Church should and could do more about poverty. Pretty much the same thing I said in my post–the same thing you just said you disagreed with.
So, help me out. Were you disagreeing with yourself, or is that just me?
W. E. Messamore said,
September 22, 2006 at 4:51 pm
Wildwest,
The word “Christianity” can often be too vague to avoid equivocation. You say “Christianity thrived…” but notice that I said, “a fundamentalist and orthodox view of Scripture lends itself…” My concern is not with the Church as an institution or Christianity as a culture, but with the beliefs and worldview found in Scripture and their overwhelmingly positive effect on the sciences. As for your link, I’ve favorited it and will be sure to give it a read.
Brandon,
You accuse me of straw-man building, and I agree that I was incorrect to write, “I also disagree with your claim that the Church doesn’t do anything about poverty” (more on that in a moment). But come on, man… you’re totally building a straw-man instead of addressing my actual argument about science and Scripture. Although I would correct you by further clarifying my meaning if you made your response after my first post, I could at least understand your response. But after my second post, it should be very clear what my argument was:
And after reading the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, it should come as no surprise that at the time and place in history when the Bible was read and revered most, the scientific revolution happened. The Bible is brimming with references to the order, beauty, and goodness of the physical universe, designed by an intelligent Creator God. The Dark Ages were characterized by their contempt for the physical world as evil, but this is not a view found in Scripture. In fact Paul labors throughout the New Testament to refute this view of matter as a heresy and to explain that the created, material world is a good thing.
Now as for the Church and charity, once again, I’ll agree that I should not have written that you said, “the Church doesn’t do anything about poverty.” However, we are not saying the same thing here. You are saying that Christians are reticent to do anything about poverty. I am saying that they do “an astounding amount” about poverty. You are saying that “we don’t do much.” I’m saying that Christians do quite a lot. Now it’s good that we both agree that Christians could and should do more. Our difference lies in our appraisal of how much we are doing currently.
I just don’t think it’s accurate to say that Christians don’t do much. Although you and I both agree that they could and should do more, it’s not right to leave it at that. It’s not right to say Christians don’t do enough and leave the impression that they’re not already doing quite a lot. The Church hardly gets any credit for all the missionaries, food, water, aid, supplies, educational tools, and Bibles it sends to help impoverished people globally, not to mention bringing the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
We already agree that the Church could and should do more. If you are willing to also agree that although we should do more it’s not accurate to say we “don’t do much” because in fact we really do quite a lot, then we can both be happy and I can buy you a drink or something (except not really because I’m too young… what a stupid law).
Brandon said,
September 22, 2006 at 6:12 pm
But W.E. I wasn’t responding to your second response. I was responding to your initial argument, which I believe to be fallacious. I’m not convinced that this is a straw-man. In fact, judging by your use of the term, I haven’t been convinced you understand exactly what it is.
With regard to your point about poverty where you comment:
It really all depends on your definition of what “a lot” is. I suspect we have radically different opinions about what exactly “a lot” is, and I doubt I’ll ever agree with your opinion if what we do for poverty right now qualifies as an “astounding amount”. I suppose I’ll just have to agree to disagree with your understanding of what “a lot” is. Further discussion on this point seems fruitless.
W. E. Messamore said,
September 22, 2006 at 7:29 pm
I wasn’t responding to your second response. I was responding to your initial argument, which I believe to be fallacious.
I know. That’s what I said. You mischaracterized my initial argument and then refuted your mischaracterization (or straw-man as I put it earlier). Then I basically said that even though it’s a mischaracterization, it’d be forgivable before my second post, but afterwards, you’re just ignoring what I’m saying. For the third time now, please respond to this:
I would submit as a possiblity that our understanding of the definition of “a lot” is not in disagreement, but rather our understanding of the actual amount churches give and do to help ease the suffering of this world.
Brandon said,
September 23, 2006 at 9:18 am
First, I fail to see how I mischaracterized your initial point. (The point addressed to me, instead of the one you addressed to Kevin.) I think I perfectly outlined your argument…no, I know I perfectly outlined your argument.
Second, this is my blog. That means when you respond to my writing, I have a right to address your arguments to me. If you want to get your panties in a wad that I didn’t go reading every word you’ve ever written on the subject here, be my guest. But don’t call me ignorant.
So you don’t like categorical statements like “Christians have contempt for science.” Fair enough. But I can show you just about as many present day examples supporting my point as you can of Christians in the middle ages who were about advancing science (albiet often under the crushing and tainting finger of the Church.) The bottom line is that it’s pretty obvious I don’t believe that ALL Christians have a contempt for science. If’n you’ve read here for a while you’ll know that I quite fancy myself a budding scientist and am certainly a Christian.
Regarding your argument of our definition of “a lot” and poverty. If you want to argue that Christians give an astounding amount for those in poverty, you’ll have to deal with this statistic:
The average giving for an average individual at an evangelical Church: 3 percent of their annual salary.
Of that 3 percent, what would you surmise goes to making sure the Church lawn is mown, the pastor(s) get paid, the bigger building gets built, etc? Maybe 2 percent.
Now, 15 or so percent of the planet lives on less than a dollar a day (for many parishoners, that’s the amount they give to church on average per day–or actually even less in many cases. If the Church was doing an “astounding amount” to alleviate poverty, I just can’t imagine how so many are still dying because they don’t have clean water or enough food.
Oh, I see. I can’t possibly know what Christians are doing for those in poverty. If I did, I couldn’t possibly believe Christians are doing enough.
If you want to have an argument with me on my blog, don’t be a jerk.
W. E. Messamore said,
September 23, 2006 at 1:35 pm
Whoa… Brandon, I don’t want there to be any bad blood between us, and I think I’ve kept my tone pretty civil and unemotional this whole time. Just because I disagree with you over something doesn’t mean I’m a jerk. You’re right, this is your blog, and if you’d rather I didn’t comment on it, I’ll leave you alone and read someone else’s blog. I certainly don’t want to be rude or annoying. I just figured that in the general spirit of the blogosphere, I’d take part in your discussion of these issues. I also think it’d be fair to say that while I’ve disagreed with you on two things you said, my tone has not been antagonistic or combative, but rather I’ve tried to find areas of agreement that we share and to work towards clarification of our views.
Brandon said,
September 23, 2006 at 2:03 pm
If this quote isn’t combative and antagonistic, then please do explain to me what you meant by it. I really do want to know:
You see, I assumed that you probably did have an understanding of what churches were doing for poverty around the world. Knitted into your above comment I read that you’re not offering me the same courtesy. Rather, imbedded in your tone is the assumption that I couldn’t possibly know what churches were truly doing to alleviate poverty. If I did, I’d agree with you.
So, there you have my reading. Please explain how I’ve misread you.
W. E. Messamore said,
September 23, 2006 at 5:01 pm
What do you want me to do in order to not be a combative jerk, assume that you know everything there is to know about the world? The fact is that none of us do, and that’s why blogs are awesome, because we can each share what we know and learn more about the world. Now you said that further discussion was fruitless because if I considered the amount the Church was doing “a lot” then we clearly had differing opinions of what “a lot” is. How is it so offensive to you that someone would suggest that perhaps you are mistaken about the actual amount the Church does? This was not a personal attack, but a further attempt at dialogue about the topic at hand. Now you gave me some figures about the amount an average Christian gives in response to my claim, and that’s a perfectly appropriate response. To say, “Well… here’s how much we give. You consider that a lot?”
Then we could debate the accuracy of your figure, qualify it, put it in context, I could draw your attention to other figures, we could have fun discussing the issue, and be all the better for it in the end without getting angry because someone thinks we’re wrong or that we don’t know everything there is to possibly know about the world. I could just as easily have taken offense to your conclusion about the fruitlessness of the argument. I could have claimed that you were implying that I consider a rather small amount quite a lot, in other words that I’m not as generous or compassionate as you (and I would have been just as in error as you are now in taking a simple discussion about the Church so personally).
Let me once again emphasize that I really don’t want there to be any bad blood between us. I’m not trying to be combative. You’re a fellow Christian and a fellow human being, and your presence and work on this blog indicate that you want to discuss the Church, its nature, and its proper role. I want to discuss the same things. Just because I disagree with you doesn’t mean I’m being a jerk. Just because I call into question your knowledge of something doesn’t mean I’m being combative. The appropriate response is to do exactly what you did until you ended by saying:
Fair enough? Truce?
spanders said,
September 25, 2006 at 9:04 pm
In the back and forth that I read, it seems to me that there is a discussion about the contributions of Christianity and of Christians. As rhetorical devices, all of us categorize and make generalizations to help illustrate a point. With that in mind, I’d like to throw a few of my own out:
Religion and science are different and have different goals. Religion cannot be explained by scientific method and science can not and should not be explained by religion (often referred to the “god of the gaps”).
In my opinion, science attempts to explain the vast systemic causality that exists in the universe. It helps us understand the how, what and at times, the why. Science has many disciplines that helps us understand the physical world as well as the cognitive world (how we think).
Religion answers our spiritual and metaphysical needs. It is more difficult to discern the value of religion in a tangible way. The value varies from person to person as the needs of each person varies.
It is when we attempt to replace science with religion is when we run into trouble. The four corners of the earth do not equate a flat earth. Six days of creation do not equal a young earth. Saying people who have provided great scientific insight and are christian does not validate christianity and science together. It is those people’s ability to understand that both aspects of life are not attempting to answer the same questions that they can move into a higher level of questioning. Being able to ask questions that have answers beyond “because God wills it” is very relevent to the scientist.
It is also important to question basic premises as they relate to politics and modern life. The question of when personhood begins has great relevance to stem cell research and the extension of life of people we know have personhood. Is cultivating embryonic stem cells murder (or ratshad)? I would argue no and is an instance where we see people attempting to replace science with religion and influencing policy. In addition we see our foreign policy not properly funding effective birth control and effective protective contraceptives in favor of the religious moralism of abstinence (which also has implications of gender roles and the myth of essences). This attempt to replace science with religion is criminal.
As christians who are part of the majority in the most powerful nation on earth, it is crucially important for us to understand who we are and what our role is. To use our religion to force policy on others is wrong and immoral. To use our religion to replace science is wrong and immoral. We need to take a long hard look at what it is to be christian and how that religion has been used to consolidate power and the affect it has on our world.
wildwest said,
September 26, 2006 at 11:16 am
Wonderfully put, spanders! My ability to articulate has been burning out lately, but you said it all for me. Thank you.
Robert said,
September 29, 2006 at 4:10 pm
I guaran-damn-tee-you that several years from now we will discover that Pat Robertson has some self interest in his environmental conversion.
He has supported African dictators because he was invested in diamond mines..etc..
Robertson says and does practically NOTHING (these days) that does not have a DIRECT financial, political or social impact on his personal agenda.