Re: [asa] AAAS President Keynote Address

Arent you at all concerned that environmentalism, just like atheism, and materialsim, and any other numerous ism's, are a substitute for Christianity?

You keep ignoring Holden's use of religious terminology. Why do you think Holden spoke in those terms? Was it just an unfortunate choice of words, or is he trying to encourage this to be a religion to his followers, and to himself? After all this was a scientific conference not a religious one.

I am concerned about the use of religious rhetoric in a conference such as this. Everyone needs to fill their "God-shaped hole", and certainly environmental zealotry would fit that bill. While I am not opposed to faith/science discussions, I am concerned that Holden is subtly using this human need for religion to advance an agenda, and by doing so is leading people away from Christ. He may not be doing this, but I dont think that we should be endorsing his use of relgious rhetoric.

Frankly I dont understand his point of tithing anyway. Shouldnt we be using well more than 10% of our talents towards the good of humanity?
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Rich Blinne
  To: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 5:24 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] AAAS President Keynote Address

  On 2/21/07, drsyme@cablespeed.com <drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:
    Rich, hang on a second. I still think you are missing
    Janice's point.

    Even though tithe literally means %10, it is clearly
    associated with religion, with churches, wouldnt you agree
    with that?

    Janice is pointing to Holdens use of this term as an
    example of what Crichton is calling Environmentalism.
    That is a zealous religion of defending the environment.

    This has nothing to do with Christianity and rationality.
    Crichton is trying to make the point that there are
    environmental scientists that are zealots, and have their
    judgement clouded. I dont agree with him, and you dont
    agree with him. But unfortunately, Holden's use of a term
    that has religious connotations, makes it appear that
    perhaps Crichton is correct. That is Janice's point. It
    has nothing to do with her faith, fideism, or anything of
    the sort.

  That's Janice's point but it is not Crichton's. Because environmental scientists can be religious zealots, you still have to take one more step in the argument and show how their judgment is clouded and why scientists should not devote their time for the benefit of humanity and why the use of religious rhetoric is bad particularly when science is supposedly atheistic. Crichton short-circuits that analysis by making ALL religious thinking suspect. Science, as defined by himself, of course, GOOD, religion, BAD. Then he only needs to show that there is a religious component and go straight to Q.E.D. Ironically, he gets to his conclusion by mis-labelling scientific thinking as religious and vice versa. Crichton is a dangerous ally for Janice and other Christian environmental skeptics to have because of this. His cure is worse than the disease. If Janice and others are concerned about the New Age influence in environmentalism -- and I am not saying that concern is illegitimate -- then she should join me in my original proposal to coopt the AAAS president's proposal. It should be Christians in science that (legitimately) tithe our talents for the (true) good of humanity.
   

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Feb 21 20:40:58 2007