Re: [asa] AAAS President Keynote Address

Maybe or maybe not. I wasn't defending them, or accusing them. I was just
outlining my perception of the issue. My personal two cents are that (a)
no, I don't think they have a lopsided view of humanity's role in and with
regard to the creation; (b) no, I don't think they ignore human
responsibility to care for creation for its own sake, though some are more
prone to see natural resources in more instrumental terms; (c) yes, this is
probably true for many of them, unfortunately. I'd also add (d) there are
legitimate concerns about making bedfellows with *some* environmentalits.

On 2/21/07, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
>
> Which is to say that the type of evangelical leaders you describe (a)
> have a view of the "special place" of humanity in creation that is so
> special that it fails to take seriously the clear biblical witness that
> links us with the rest of creation, (b) don't see that part of our
> specialness is the human responsibility to care for creation for its own
> sake & (c) have so conflated their religious & their political views that
> they're no longer able to tell the difference.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> *To:* George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
> *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 21, 2007 9:16 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] AAAS President Keynote Address
>
>
> I agree with you ,George, that environmental concern doesn't have to
> become a religious "ism" and is very much central to a Christian
> understanding of creation and vocation. At the same time, it doesn't take
> much digging to uncover the very anti-Christian worldview and
> ethics underlying some aspects of the contemporary environmental movement.
> IMHO, it is very hard, if not impossible, to make common cause with folks
> who hold the view, for example, that human beings are ethically equivalent
> to any other animal(ala Peter Singer), or that the earth is a quasi-sentient
> "Gaia" organism. I think this concern very much underlies the split within
> evangelicalism over global warming. One concern of the "Interfaith
> Alliance" group (the group of evangelical warming skeptics), I think, is
> that the evangelical leaders who accept global warming as a problem are
> somehow ceding ground to worldviews that fail to give humanity a special
> place in the created order. (Another major concern, of course, is a deep
> political suspicion of government regulation, and of international
> organizations in particular, which is probably way the skeptic group
> includes religious right figures such as James Dobson).
>
>
> On 2/21/07, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, environmentalism can be a religion. So can money, sex, the
> > American way of life & virtually anything else. So throw your money away,
> > take a vow of celibacy & become the man/woman without a country.
> >
> > The fact that environmentalism *can* be a religion should not be
> > countered by denying legitimate concerns about the environment but by
> > showing how the calling to care for the natural world is properly understood
> > within the context of Christian doctrines of creation & vocation. See,
> > e.g., the environmental statements of churches such as the Presbyterian
> > Church in the USA, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, & the
> > Orthodox Church (the latter, of course, a real band of wild-eyed liberals!)
> >
> > I'm assuming of course that this concern about "environmentalism is a
> > religion" is real & not a red herring, though I'm not so naive as to think
> > that that's the case for all who raise this cry.
> >
> > Shalom
> > George
> > http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Jack <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
> > *To:* Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com> ; asa@calvin.edu
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 21, 2007 8:41 PM
> > *Subject:* 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 <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
> > *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 23:08:01 2007