Support the Café

Search our Site

Anti-science threatens the world

Anti-science threatens the world

The New Zealand Times reports on the current meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and fears that current anti-science campaigns will destroy the world:

Science is “under siege,” top academics and educators were warned repeatedly at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting as they were urged to better communicate their work to the public.

Scientific solutions are needed to solve global crises — from food and water shortages to environmental destruction — “but the public now does not understand science,” leading US climate change expert and Nasa scientist James Hansen told the meeting.

“We have a planetary emergency, and very few people recognise that.”

The theme of the five-day meeting, attended by some 8,000 scientists from 50 countries, was “Flattening the world: Building a global knowledge society.”

“It’s about persuading people to believe in science, at a time when disturbing numbers don’t,” said meeting co-chair Andrew Petter, president of Simon Fraser University in this western Canadian city.

Rosling, pointing to charts showing how human populations changed with technology and how without science the majority of a family’s children die, said it is naive to think that humanity can easily go backward in history.

“I get angry when I hear people say: ‘In the rainforest people live in ecological balance.’ They don’t. They die in ecological balance,” he said.

Outgoing AAAS president Nina Fedoroff, a renowned expert on life sciences and biotechnology, said a growing anti-science attitude “probably lies in our own psyche.”

“Belief systems, especially when tinged with fear, are not easily dispersed with facts,” she said, noting that in the United States “fewer people ‘believe’ in climate change each year.”


Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
James Pirrung-Mikolajczyk

A person who doesn’t believe that God didn’t inspire the Bible, and totally rejects it, has no right to use it for anything.

First of all, you don’t read what I say. I have said that I support green initiatives and praised TEC for using other methods than the Global Warming hoax to further them. In typical liberal fashion, you broadbrush me with your vehement hatred of conservatives. BTW, there’s a major difference between conservative and fundamentalist, even if liberals don’t care. People on the left hate those who stand for something.

1Jn 2 makes it clear that those who reject Jesus’ incarnation and relationship with God are antichrists. If you don’t like that fact, take it up with God.

It’s ironic to me that you judge me and say that I have no relationship with God but rebuke me for what you perceive are my actions. First of all, I called you nothing; I quoted the Bible. Second, I never made any statements about your faith in the way you did mine. Honestly, if there’s a such thing as “liberal fundamentalism,” your posts definitely show it, Mr Magda. Your spite for conservative Christians is saddening.

James Pirrung

Josh Magda

Because I don’t think God wrote the Bible, and if He did, He needed a good editor. See the skeptic’s annotated Bible online for the reasons I think this is the case. But we have been down this road before.

The reason I object is because of the terrible things in the Bible that fundamentalists support, the many good things they ignore, and the way you read the Bible in general, which, for example, would lead you to deny global warming at the expense of possibly the entire planet’s wellbeing.

Jesus said when he left that he was going to send a fresh impartation of the Spirit for us, not an instruction manual. As Paul said, the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. The Bible should be read in community, and anew, alongside the book of nature, if it is to remain a life giving resource to the church.

With the greatest possible humility, your posts on this website do not suggest to me a relationship with a living God, a God who is accessible to all who truly seek, but rather an idolatrous relationship with (your interpretation) of the Bible that causes great harm to the church and to the world. Such an idolatrous relationship leads you to continue to belittle gay people, make ridiculous statements about the natural world, and even call me an anti-chirst in a previous post because I did not agree with your interpretation of the resurrection.

I believe that the kind of faith that you continuously display on this board is exactly the kind of faith that has lead many hundreds of millions of people away from God altogether, because they think they have to choose between atheism and fundamentalism, both false choices based in flatland ontologies of God, Nature, and Spirit, bringing our planet to the breaking point in the process.

And I don’t care to continue with you about this; this thread was for a discussion on an article posted on “anti-science.”

James Pirrung-Mikolajczyk

Mr Magda,

Why do you assume that those of us who actually believe God’s revelation to us in Scripture stand for a “theocratic fantasyland?” Not all conservatives are fundamentalists, as you suggest. Also, not all of us support theonomy, which is what I think you really mean. “Theocracy” is a government operated directly by God or an appointed representative. A theonomy is a human one governed according to a perception of divine will. I would love the former, but oppose the latter.

The Church is not a democracy or a consensus of opinion. It is supposed to follow the teachings of Christ, including the ones liberals object to.

James Pirrung

Josh Magda

Ah, I see we’re back to the space religious liberals have had to occupy since the nineteenth century…

a.) To the desacralized universe of naturalistic materialism,

b.) And to the theocratic fantasyland of fundamentalism-

We quietly choose

c.) none of the above

James Pirrung-Mikolajczyk

As indicated by a quote by Isaac Asimov, those who support scientific arguments over theological ones deem themselves as “intellectuals” and others as “ignorant.” In reality, science and theology have two separate aims with rather wide perspectives and views. It is grossly inappropriate for a scientist to dismiss a well-educated theologian as an ignoramus simply because he/she doesn’t agree with their perpective just as for a theologian to do the same toward the scientist. Dr. Forsburg, I agree that science and religion do not HAVE to contradict, but they usually do. Even in TEC, conservatives are called mean-spirited names by the liberal variety because we reject their dismissal of biblical authority. It’s not just Dawkins; it’s also fellow religious. This attitude even exists in some of your earlier posts.

A worldview that comes primarily from Scripture will always contradict humankind’s best attempts to discover the world’s mysteries, i.e., science. If we believe that God revealed his Word to us through the Bible, we must use this revelation to critique the world around us. Otherwise, we have the ever-changing constructs of human thought. God must be our anchor.

James Pirrung

Support the Café
Past Posts

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café