Denying expert knowledge by appealing to conspiracy

juvenissun said:

Let me ask you: Does the Bible tell us whether we should preserve the earth environment at any cost? Should we oppose a farmer to use an acre of his land because there is an endangered bug live on it? Does the Bible say anything about it?

If you say no, then you are right, but you are not good enough in understanding Christianity.

Click to expand...

The Christianity I don't understand good enough tells me that we are called to be stewards of God's creation. If we deem that stewardship to require that we protect an endangered species, then that is what we should do.

Strathos said:

The point is that making claims that are at a complete 180 from known reality and justifying them with elaborate conspiracy theories is a bad idea. There are non-theists who do this same thing.

Click to expand...

OK, reason accepted.
However, it still smells fishy.

Speedwell said:

But what I don't understand is why anyone would cling to an interpretation of Genesis which was at odds with fairly obvious scientific evidence when no important point of Christian doctrine was at stake.
So I am, indeed, struggling a little with your point.

Click to expand...

Yes, you do not understand. The only way for you to think differently is to get into science as deep as you could.

I believe Genesis 1:11 is true EXACTLY because I do see that what It says fit the modern scientific understanding very well. If that were not the case, I would probably be one like you. And because it IS the case, my confidence to Genesis is not easy to shake. In order to do that, one has to shake my scientific understanding first, which I don't think is possible.

Speedwell said:

The Christianity I don't understand good enough tells me that we are called to be stewards of God's creation. If we deem that stewardship to require that we protect an endangered species, then that is what we should do.

Click to expand...

Not exactly. We should take care of the earth based on ONE condition: do no harm to human. I would have no second thought to remove that endangered bug, in order to allow the farmer to use his land.

That, is what the Bible message is. (you can not find any Bible verse which explicitly says that)

juvenissun said:

Not exactly. We should take care of the earth based on ONE condition: do no harm to human. I would have no second thought to remove that endangered bug, in order to allow the farmer to use his land.

That, is what the Bible message is. (you can not find any Bible verse which explicitly says that)

Click to expand...

Yes, I recognize it: the "God-given right to private property."

Speedwell said:

Yes, I recognize it: the "God-given right to private property."

Click to expand...

What I illustrated is a real case happened a few years back. It happened in CA and is done by EPA.

The destruction of coal miner community in PA is another sad case of the same nature.

juvenissun said:

What I illustrated is a real case happened a few years back. It happened in CA and is done by EPA.

The destruction of coal miner community in PA is another sad case of the same nature.

Click to expand...

What does this have to do with the OP?

Speedwell said:

What does this have to do with the OP?

Click to expand...

Everything.
We can not fight government easily. But we certainly can deny those experts in the government offices.

@Strathos , are you claiming that the concepts in the OP are inseparable; that we must accept or reject all of them as a package deal...?

That sounds like a logical fallacy to me, but I can't remember which one.

My take on them?

• Agree, 1
• Exaggerated half-truth, 1
• Disagree, 5
• Uncertain/unconvinced, 1

Are you, yourself, prepared to reject God because someone else likens Him to the Flying Spaghetti Monster...?

So, agreeing or disagreeing without a "conspiracy" defense isn't a problem from the standpoint of this thread?

juvenissun said:

The accusation in the OP is very general and nebulous. If you go to any specifics, then you missed the point.

In general, it says: You Christians are fool in terms of science. Christians may not know much about science (so are most non-Christians), but they do can reject something scientists said according to the Bible.

Click to expand...

The OP doesn't mention Christians or Christianity; it's concerned with conspiracy beliefs.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

The OP doesn't mention Christians or Christianity; it's concerned with conspiracy beliefs.

Click to expand...

It does not have to mention it to mean it.

juvenissun said:

Everything.
We can not fight government easily. But we certainly can deny those experts in the government offices.

Click to expand...

You can deny them, but where is the conspiracy?

Speedwell said:

You can deny them, but where is the conspiracy?

Click to expand...

There is no conspiracy to the victims.
To scientists who suggested the policy, they can make up anything which become the reason of your defying.
For example: those who insist burning coal is ignorant on climate change.

juvenissun said:

There is no conspiracy to the victims.
To scientists who suggested the policy, they can make up anything which become the reason of your defying.
For example: those who insist burning coal is ignorant on climate change.

Click to expand...

So what is their goal in making things up?

Strathos said:

The point is that making claims that are at a complete 180 from known reality and justifying them with elaborate conspiracy theories is a bad idea. There are non-theists who do this same thing.

Click to expand...

Agreed. A Venn diagram employing theist and non-theist domains is unnecessary. We simply require one labelled "Fools".

Speedwell said:

So what is their goal in making things up?

Click to expand...

They are not making things up. They really think they are right.

juvenissun said:

They are not making things up. They really think they are right.

Click to expand...

So where does the conspiracy come into it? You think they are just wrong, not making up stuff to their opponents' detriment. There's no conspiracy in that.