4215
4216

Florida scientists press Gov. Rick Scott on climate change. "You responded that you are 'not a scientist.' We are scientists and we would like the opportunity to explain what is at stake for our state." (tampabay.com)

submitted by pnewell

sorted by:
best
best
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]HelpMeLoseMyFat 99 ポイント100 ポイント

"No need to worry about the future or your scientific fact, I donate to my church and god loves me so I will be fine in the eyes of the lord!"

[–]andydna 88 ポイント89 ポイント

Exactly this.

Faith is a deliberate rejection of reality in favor of a delusion. If one has true faith in the impending rapture and apocalypse, faith that there is a next world, faith that there is a God who is actively fathering reality and specifically humans and specifically the group that you happen to worship with and be a part of-

That it gives that person everything they need to evade responsibility for anything and everything in this world.

It is a pass to ignore any and all facts that the people with faith gladly accept and even believe their position to be totally justified and sane.

It is a reckless and irresponsible IMO.

[–]HillbillyMan 26 ポイント27 ポイント

That's not entirely true. I'm a religious person, but I actively try to lessen my carbon footprint. It's just as dangerous to criticize religion when trying to convince the ones that don't understand differently. When you try to attack someone's religion, you attack pretty much everything they build their life around. Why would they want to listen to you after that? You need to explain to them that acting so irresponsibly is a selfish thing to do. Put things in terms they understand.

[–]WonTonBurritoMeals 32 ポイント33 ポイント

I don't think it was a bash on religion, but a lot of people use it as an excuse to not care about the earth. And its a deeply rooted belief that you're not going to change. So compare that to another big one, apathy - you can motivate someone to change their behavior from being lazy or not caring by having a consequence for it. You're not gonna change someone's deeply held religious belief that what they are doing is okay.

[–]Ringbearer31 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Call it sloth, it's one of the deadly sins.

[–]CheesewithWhine 13 ポイント14 ポイント

When you try to attack someone's religion, you attack pretty much everything they build their life around.

Maybe we should stop building our lives around religion.

[–]Uppercut_City 6 ポイント7 ポイント

Or maybe we should come up with better ways to explain things to people that do.

[–]crazyike -1 ポイント0 ポイント

If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people.

[–]Uppercut_City 0 ポイント1 ポイント

That line of thought is exactly why you can't.

[–]Calls_it_Lost_Wages 0 ポイント1 ポイント

No... I'm pretty sure it's their refusal to listen to reason...

I mean, it's not like no one's tried before.

[–]Uppercut_City [score hidden]

You know what's amazing is that I'm sure people who proselytize say the same thing of non-believers.

[–]Calls_it_Lost_Wages [score hidden]

And still only one side would have reason on their side.

[–]Toast_Machine 22 ポイント23 ポイント

I understand that having your religion challenged (and therefore your identity and whole worldview) might "hurt", but when certain individuals grant themselves "Divine Rights" you have to speak up.

You, as an individual, might not believe that the creator of all reality considers you and your people its "chosen ones", but a lot do.

You, as an individual, might not believe that every animal, plant and non-human creature has no soul and was given to you by The Divine Creator and can therefore be tortured and brutally murdered for pleasure, but a lot do.

You, as an individual, might not believe that the world will soon end and therefore we can ruin and destroy the world without any consequence, but a lot do.

They believe this because they think The Motherfucking Creator of EVERYTHING holds a special place in his heart for them. That 1 small insignificant planet out of an immeasurable amount is the center of everything.

Religion is the poison. Most religions say: "Believe this, no matter how stupid it is. If you have a question, you are evil, so don't ask any questions and OBEY YOUR MASTERS."

I don't think these law-makers have ill-intent in their hearts. I just think they're scared shitless of burning for eternity if they defy a 1500 year old book written by sheep-herders.

At the end of the day, they're fucking children and have a weird view about responsibility.

[–]WashILLiams 6 ポイント7 ポイント

Lol guys I'm religious and being persecuted since this guy is saying peoples faith lets them justify not having to take responsibility for what they do in the world. I am going to attack religion here and say your are way to quick to jump the gun on being persecuted and even quicker on the persecuting.

Maybe not all religions of course since it's not entirely true as you said but the Christian majority and the vocal minority everyone hears from that comes with that makes it seem like you're just a bunch of babies who have to get your way. That's just how religious people come off to me in America at least.

Maybe you believe in something different and have a good set of beliefs, I sure hope so you seem like a good person but this whole "attacking religion" thing needs to stop. I've never seen a majority act like they get the shit end of the stick so much then turn that around and act like they can control what another person does with their life, it's fucked up yo.

TL;DR: Their quick to be attacked but when a religious person tries to shit on someone else rights their still the ones being attacked. Not everything is a jab at your religion. Learn there's a difference between getting persecuted and someone complaining about how a persons "faith" allows them to refrain them from taking responsibility in this world for what they do.

[–]Mr_Life_Styles 3 ポイント4 ポイント

Put things in terms they understand.

Treat them like children.

[–]Calls_it_Lost_Wages 9 ポイント10 ポイント

When you try to attack someone's religion

That's odd. I didn't see /u/andydna attacking anything or anyone. What do you mean?

[–]straius 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Ultimately it's a very negative message of absolving oneself of responsibility solely because of religion. Basically stating that religion is willful delusion leading to irresponsible and reality denying people.

Maybe some individuals are guilty of that, but you can't say that because someone is religious, that they will fall into this description. I know plenty of climate deniers that aren't religious but argue identical points.

That said... I feel like conservatism itself has become a religion for many people. But that's another whole topic in itself.

Point being, I know plenty of religious people that are also very critical and insightful thinkers. I'm not religious in any way and I hate the in-group thinking that happens in many religious communities, but I can't objectively say that just being religious = ignorance/irresponsibility.

[–]Calls_it_Lost_Wages 4 ポイント5 ポイント

the poster I was referring to wasn't speaking about all religious people. He was talking about those with faith-based beliefs that contradict reality, which forces them to deny reality and act based on false information.

Of course not all religious people deny scientific reality.

Did you mean to reply to someone else?

[–]benpatient -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

Sorry, I don't think you're being fair...

Faith is a deliberate rejection of reality in favor of a delusion.... It is a reckless and irresponsible IMO.

There were no qualifiers or limitations in his statement. It was disparaging of "faith" in general ("delusion" "reckless" "irresponsible") and that's just not fair.

I have faith in a whole lot of unproved scientific theories, and I don't mind calling it faith, because that's what it is.

Being a functional, thoughtful person in the real world requires a certain amount of faith in something or another. It isn't automatically delusional...it's practical.

[–]Calls_it_Lost_Wages 2 ポイント3 ポイント

I disagree. Neither accepting the (highly-probable) truth of scientific claims that you can't personally test or verify or accepting the possibility of an unproven scientific claim have anything to do with "faith". To equate this "faith" with religious faith is disingenuous. You are talking about belief.

Religious faith is an entirely different concept. It is the belief in a reality that either contradicts the evidence around us or has zero evidence altogether.... as the OP said.

The religious faith we are talking about is delusional because it requires either a denial of evidence or a belief based upon zero evidence.

I don't think I was being unfair.

[–]straius -1 ポイント0 ポイント

I understand what you're arguing and agree with your definitions, but what Ben said above in his first paragraph is correct. The tone of the original comment was an attack/negative. I think you're being overly forgiving and that the original comment was overly broad in scope.

But I don't fundamentally disagree with your position overall about faith vs belief, etc...

[–]Calls_it_Lost_Wages 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Perhaps. I am not andydna so I don't know if he was trying to include other forms of faith in his statement.

However, he was specifically referring to religion in the rest of his comment, so I don't think it's an unfair assumption that he wasn't.

When someone says "faith", especially within the contexts here, it's reasonable to assume they're referring to religious faith exclusively.

[–]benpatient -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

You just moved the goal posts again. First you said that OP wasn't attacking, because he was only talking about a certain subset of religious followers. That was clearly untrue, so you are now bending from "faith" to "belief."

I believe that 1+1 is 2. That's belief, but not faith. I have faith that evolution is real, and that is also a belief of mine. Any time you move from the known to the unknown (or unprovable), you are going from belief to faith.

There aren't many religious faiths that require a "belief based on zero evidence."

How do we know that Socrates existed? Or Henry VIII? Someone wrote something down, and someone else copied it, and someone else translated, for (what was allegedly) a couple thousand years.

Lots of people believe that we have found alien space ships and keep them hidden from the public. Evidence for that is much, much less reputable than evidence for the existence of Jesus or Buddha or Mohammed, etc.

Most people believe that cutting a worm in half will create 2 living worms, or that you only use 10% of your brain, or that you should drink 8 glasses of water a day, or that australian toilets flush 'backwards,' or that using peroxide on a wound will help it heal faster. That's not faith, it's just belief. If they change their lives based on that belief, then you could argue it is faith.

[–]Calls_it_Lost_Wages 1 ポイント2 ポイント

You just moved the goal posts again. First you said that OP wasn't attacking

No, I said he wasn't attacking because he was merely pointing out facts about religious people in the context of climate change denial. That's not attacking. The user I was replying to feels he is being attacked when others discuss his faith with the appropriate level of disdain. As is typical.

That was my whole point. /u/HillbillyMan accused /u/andydna of "attacking" and I didn't think he was. I'm not moving goalposts, I'm responding to the new issues brought up in subsequent replies.

because he was only talking about a certain subset of religious followers. That was clearly untrue, so you are now bending from "faith" to "belief."

It was true and you clearly don't grasp my explanation.

I have faith that evolution is real, and that is also a belief of mine.

I'm arguing that that isn't the definition of faith commonly understood when someone talks about "faith". And not in this context either.

There aren't many religious faiths that require a "belief based on zero evidence."

If we take Christianity as an example as is appropriate for this discussion, everything about the metaphysics and metaphysical basis for dogma has zero evidence.

Claims and hearsay are not evidence.

[–]MotamaPT -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Yet it was a perceived as an attack and perception is just weighty as intention. I interpreted a connotation of wrongness in those that have faith in something -specifically a faith in a religion/deity/organization. The comment assumes Faith - the religious faith - is a delusion. Has he/she have proof?
To one with faith that declaration is a slight and insult to what they believe. How can that person not take it as an attack?

[–]Calls_it_Lost_Wages 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Yet it was a perceived as an attack and perception is just weighty as intention.

When someone perceives an attack where none was intended, that says more about the fragility of the perceiver's position than the speaker's malice. Even if it was meant as an attack, it is very justified. We're talking about religious climate change deniers here. That's equivalent to your next door neighbour refusing to stop dumping their garbage in your backyard because their pastor told them to keep doing it because Jesus told him he wants them to.

I interpreted a connotation of wrongness in those that have faith in something -specifically a faith in a religion/deity/organization.

Good. There is plenty wrong with it. Especially when it leads people to deny reality and act against their own interests, hell... their own species' interest, because someone manipulates them into thinking a deity wants them to. That's evil.

The comment assumes Faith - the religious faith - is a delusion. Has he/she have proof?

Are you trying to be ironic here?

Imagine you're not an idiot who says something this blindly un-self-aware for a moment and re-read what you wrote. I challenge you to figure out what's wrong with your question.

To one with faith that declaration is a slight and insult to what they believe. How can that person not take it as an attack?

You know, I admit that it's totally reasonable for someone to take that as an attack. I mean, you're right: How could they not? When someone puts up such blinders on themselves (or has them imposed upon them from birth), having an outsider who is soberly aware of that blindness casually express their disdain for it must be rather jarring. The only possible response is to put up more barriers and cry insult and offence to shield yourself from the painful truth: That a lot of people understand just how ignorant and/or misled you are and casually talk about it like you're foolish preteens who've yet to figure out Santa isn't real.

You know what? I retract my claim that it wasn't an attack. You were right, I was wrong.

[–]MotamaPT [score hidden]

Are you assuming that I have blinders on because I attempted to explain how the previous statement could be taken as an attack?

When someone perceives an attack where none was intended, that says more about the fragility of the perceiver's position than the speaker's malice

Throwing a bunch of rocks off a building to demonstrate gravity is not intended to be an attack but if they crack a load of windshields how are the car owners not going to feel attacked? "I didn't intend to break your window, so its okay." ?

The comment assumes Faith - the religious faith - is a delusion. Has he/she have proof? Are you trying to be ironic here

Partially Ironic. I am of the Catholic faith yet I am a strong believer that man-made climate change is real and a danger due to the overwhelming body of proof.

Faith is a deliberate rejection of reality in favor of a delusion I do not reject reality. I continue to use my intellect to make informed decisions on the world. If someone manages to prove that God does not exist, and it well done research/experimentation/etc then I'd admit my error. But an absent of proof is not a proof of absence.

[–]Calls_it_Lost_Wages [score hidden]

Are you assuming that I have blinders on because I attempted to explain how the previous statement could be taken as an attack?

No, I was speaking of climate change deniers specifically and the particularly ignorant, science-denying Christian in general. I know almost nothing about you.

Throwing a bunch of rocks off a building to demonstrate gravity is not intended to be an attack but if they crack a load of windshields how are the car owners not going to feel attacked? "I didn't intend to break your window, so its okay." ?

Well, if we take it further, if the car owners happen to leave the cars idling 24/7 and it is ruining the local air quality, and the owners refuse to turn them off even after being old why it's detrimental to everyone, breaking windows can seem like a more efficient way of getting the owners attention.

Partially Ironic. I am of the Catholic faith yet I am a strong believer that man-made climate change is real and a danger due to the overwhelming body of proof.

What if someone presented conclusive evidence to you that transubstantiation doesn't actually physically occur? Or holy water is no different than ordinary water? Or that there is a physiological and physical explanation for why people speak in tongues at Adoration? Would you cling to your dogma and say, "but I still believe!"? Of course you would, because these points of dogma are carefully constructed (or reconstructed) to stay outside of the physical. The Catholic Church has a lot of practice with it.

The fact remains that a lot of other sects do not even bother with that.

"Faith is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary."

I do not reject reality. I continue to use my intellect to make informed decisions on the world. If someone manages to prove that God does not exist, and it well done research/experimentation/etc then I'd admit my error. But an absent of proof is not a proof of absence.

So, if you can believe in a god and set of dogma without evidence that he is real or the dogma "correct", why not believe a different set? A different god? What makes yours special? Could it have anything to do with to whom and where and when you were born? That seems convenient.

The burden of proof is always in the claimant's side.

Catholics are not on the wrong side in the climate debate, but you have plenty of claims to account for, and still zero evidence to back it up.

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[–]Vanabrus 11 ポイント12 ポイント

That's not entirely true.

Why? Because you are the minority that doesn't do this? Also, I find it hilarious how he hasn't 'attacked' you or religion at all, yet you take it as an attack.

Please explain how what he said isn't true for a lot of religious people.

Why the fuck do you think there are so many suicide bombers?

[–]PiousLiar 1 ポイント2 ポイント

The original statement made no limitation to who it applied to, but instead made an all encompassing statement of what religion is. When he stated that religion is living in a delusion, that can be considered an attack. It may not have been meant as one, but it can easily be misconstrued as one. And though the other user (I'm on mobile, so I can't just scroll up and look at their names) responds with an anecdote, he is breaking the universal statement the former user made. So his "not entirely true" statement is technically correct. I'm not taking either's side, just correcting you

Edit: their, not there

[–]HillbillyMan -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Because suicide bombers are also a majority. And I can honestly say that I haven't met a religious person that felt that they shouldn't take care of the earth. I may have phrased it incorrectly when I started talking about attacking religion. What I meant was that people (not The person I was replying to) seem to wanna jump down religious people's throats rather than even remotely attempt to talk to them without belittling their beliefs.

[–]lasagnaman 5 ポイント6 ポイント

And I can honestly say that I haven't met a religious person that felt that they shouldn't take care of the earth.

Gov. Rick Scott.

[–]onioning -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Has /u/HillbillyMan met the Governor?

[–]Calls_it_Lost_Wages 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Who cares?

[–]onioning [score hidden]

No one, really. Just sayin' that "Gov. Rick Scott" is not a relevant response to /u/HillbillyMan's comment, because he hasn't met him.

[–]Calls_it_Lost_Wages [score hidden]

It's also pointing out the absurdity of "I've never met X, so therefore it doesn't exist."

[–]rystesh 5 ポイント6 ポイント

Where do you live that you've never met a religious person with the mentioned environmental views? Because I live in south Georgia and I have only met a couple out of hundreds that don't.

[–]onioning 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Try the CA bay area. Plenty of places really. Obviously, not other places.

Though now I'm in way North CA, which is a different story. It aint about religion up here though. Folks just hate the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy.

[–]Knappsterbot -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

Try leaving South Georgia...

[–]rystesh 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Will that correct the religious majority's anti-environmentalism? If I leave? Because I'll do it for the earth.

[–]onioning -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

It may correct the local religious majority's anti-environmentalism, which seems to be what you're talking about. Depends on where you go, though unfortunately, I don't see anything you personally do being of much benefit to the Earth.

[–]Vanabrus 0 ポイント1 ポイント

The part where I was talking about majority wasn't referring to suicide bombers.

I was referring that the majority of religious people do have the attitude that /u/andydna was talking about.

Then I gave an example that on the extreme end, that line of thinking is exactly what leads to suicide bombers.

The thing is, talking about religion by definition will eventually lead to a 'belittling' of their beliefs.

Here's an example; how do you talk to Mormon's without eventually referencing the magic underwear that they wear? Or the absurdity of someone coming back to life (i.e. Jesus)?

Simply by questioning how those things fly in the face of reality as we know it, is considered belittling their beliefs (actually, blasphemy).

So fuck it, there's no way you can talk to them that isn't automatically taken as an 'attack on religion'.

Such a joke.

[–]cmmgreene 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Used to do that in college all the time. It is where I realized Jesus would probably be a hippie.

[–]udbluehens 1 ポイント2 ポイント

When you try to attack someone's religion, you attack pretty much everything they build their life around

Thats the entire fucking problem. Personally identifying with a claim about reality is fucking atrocious and shuts you off from all criticism or questioning. Imagine the same personal identification with a different claim, like "disease is caused by elves". If I say "no, its caused by viruses and bacteria, and heres evidence" and you take that as a personal insult, then there is no discussion or growth.

[–]pilgrimboy 0 ポイント1 ポイント

But it's easier to just attack and feel better about myself than to actually communicate with those I disagree with.

[–]thenickb -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

Faith is an epistemological method. /u/andydna was wrong that faith is a rejection of reality in favor of a delusion. You can actually have faith in something that is 100% correct, and just lack the knowledge to understand it on another level. Faith favors incorrect conclusions in a statistical sense, but doesn't intrinsically reject reality for one. A huge problem with it, though, is that it isn't guarded from delusions, biases, etc. unlike other methods. You're also a good example of someone who uses faith in one area of your life, but not in others. If you wouldn't mind me asking, why do you find faith to be reasonable for some answers and not others?

The problem with Rick Scott and other deniers is that they're using this flawed epistemological method to come to many of their answers which can't produce results as good as other methods. He and his kin are breeding anti-intellectualism in this country and it must stop.

[–]HillbillyMan 2 ポイント3 ポイント

In my mind, science is fact. But I believe that these facts that we come to understand were set in motion by a higher power. I don't believe that God bends to the will of people simply because they pray. I believe that he silently watches over the universe he created making sure it all stays in running order. I don't look for faith to answer questions, I look to science to reveal the secrets behind my faith. To me, all of the stuff that we know to be true, the laws of physics, the origin of the universe, etc. are too impressive to be entirely coincidental. Scientific research isn't about disproving god's existence, it's about learning the background to how and what he does. M

[–]thenickb 0 ポイント1 ポイント

So why do you have faith in this god who does/did these things as opposed to saying, since I have no evidence I'm going to withhold judgement?

[–]Calls_it_Lost_Wages 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Jungian judging vs. perceiving, I suppose...

[–]thenickb [score hidden]

Those are both personality statements and thus both fail to protect against biases. If we're looking for truth we must attempt to do this as much as possible.

[–]Calls_it_Lost_Wages [score hidden]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean...

I just meant that judgers are much more likely to be religious (or at least, true believers) since they are not at all comfortable with "withholding judgement" while perceivers are and are more likely to be wishy-washy religious if at all.

[–]AnthonySytko 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Very well said. I've seen so many discussions nowadays that pit religion vs. science, as if you can have one or the other, but not both. They're mutually exclusive, but not in the way most people believe. Religion (I'm Christian, but I'll expand as broadly as I can to all religions) relies upon faith. Faith is a belief in that which cannot be seen nor proven. That's the dictionary definition of the word. Science is the study of that which can be measured and proven.

Therefore, it is entirely possible to use science to explain that which can be measured and proven, and still have faith in that which defies logic. I'm as logical as they come, but I still pray every night and believe in a loving God. People forget that many of the great scientists of history were religious men. They studied science not to disprove God's existence, but to honor His creations and learn more about them.

[–]Calls_it_Lost_Wages 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Do you think many scientists study their disciplines for the purpose of disproving god's existence?

[–]AnthonySytko [score hidden]

Not at all. My point was that society believes nowadays you can be scientific or religious, but not both, and that there's a perception that all scientists are atheists, because either "you believe in science so you don't need God" or vice versa.

[–]Calls_it_Lost_Wages [score hidden]

True. It's probably not very well known, in America at least, that Catholics do not reject any science. For the very good reason that evangelicals are way louder with their ignorance.

As a scientist myself, I know of no one among my immediate peers and research field who is a christian. I'm Canadian so it's unsurprising. I'm sure there are a few, but they don't let it be known. It is not unreasonable for a scientist to, at the very least, feel some contempt and even mistrust of a religious scientist because, if they are not willing to be objective and apply logic and fact-based inquiry into such an integral part of themselves, how can they be trusted to do so with their work

However, when you keep god (mostly) outside of science's purview, as does Catholicism, it's easy to believe without rejecting science.