Is faith a factor in climate change denial?

Occams Barber · Oct 12, 2020

Halbhh said:
I prefer to use the word "faith" to refer to actual belief in God, evidenced by following His instructions, instead of 'faith' referring to merely an affiliation or religious identity or denomination, as the word is used typically in the modern secular usage.

What you call the 'modern' secular usage of the word 'faith' actually pre-dates its use as a reference to the Christian church/religion.

General usage of 'faith' probably dates from the mid-13th century while usage specific to Christian 'faith' occurs about a century later. Usage in the sense of belief based on incomplete evidence appears between the two dates.
faith | Search Online Etymology Dictionary

OB

klutedavid · Oct 13, 2020

Hazelelponi said:
No.. for me science is the deciding factor, the problem is the climate change advocates don't pay attention to the actual science.

Quote:
The most highly cited paper supposedly found 97 per cent of published scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented.

Most papers (66 per cent) actually took no position. Of the remaining 34 per cent, 33 per cent supported at least a weak human contribution to global warming. So divide 33 by 34 and you get 97 per cent, but this is unremarkable since the 33 per cent includes many papers that critique key elements of the IPCC position.

Two recent surveys shed more light on what atmospheric scientists actually think. Bear in mind that on a topic as complex as climate change, a survey is hardly a reliable guide to scientific truth, but if you want to know how many people agree with your view, a survey is the only way to find out.

In 2012 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members, receiving 1,862 responses. Of those, only 52% said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly man-made (the IPCC position). The remaining 48% either think it happened but natural causes explain at least half of it, or it didn’t happen, or they don’t know. Furthermore, 53% agree that there is conflict among AMS members on the question.

So no sign of a 97% consensus. Not only do about half reject the IPCC conclusion, more than half acknowledge that their profession is split on the issue.

Putting the 'con' in consensus; Not only is there no 97 per cent consensus among climate scientists, many misunderstand core issues: op-ed

There is disagreement among scientists, so why should we just believe the party line which has made it political and is using it to advance very political agendas?

But you didn't ask me, since I'm considered evangelical I think... (I'm not exactly sure on that point)

This is the one that has me baffled.

In 2012 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members, receiving 1,862 responses. Of those, only 52% said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly man-made (the IPCC position). The remaining 48% either think it happened but natural causes explain at least half of it, or it didn’t happen

Click to expand...

The one scientific discipline that should unanimous in it's response, shows the largest division in opinion.

klutedavid · Oct 13, 2020

Kenny'sID said:
To me, it all boils down to, I have good reason to believe the climate will be pretty much normal at the return of Christ, so between the following scripture that tells me that, and the fact so many figure they have good reason to believe climate change is a joke, I'm sure enough its not a problem.

And if one's not a Christian, then of course there is no reason they would consider this a reason to not be concerned.

Matthew 24:36-42

"36But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. 37But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 40Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 41Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 42Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come."

Looks pretty much like business as usual to me anyway.

Luke 21:25
English Standard Version
And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth distress of nations in perplexity because of the roaring of the sea and the waves.

Not sure if it is business as usual.

FireDragon76 · Oct 13, 2020

Meteorologists are not climatologists. Citing them as experts on this subject is misleading.

Kenny'sID · Oct 13, 2020

klutedavid said:
Luke 21:25
English Standard Version
And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth distress of nations in perplexity because of the roaring of the sea and the waves.

Not sure if it is business as usual.

The subject was the weather, so "business as usual" with the weather.

durangodawood · Oct 13, 2020

Caliban said:
Is faith a factor in climate change denial?

Not faith per se, but the evangelical USA Christianity that serves the R Party. Its the Party's ideological enforcement bureau. And climate change denial is a core party principle.

Caliban · Oct 13, 2020

durangodawood said:
Not faith per se, but the evangelical USA Christianity that serves the R Party. Its the Party's ideological enforcement bureau. And climate change denial is a core party principle.

The poll was careful to indicate that it was faith combined with politics among Evangelicals. That is a rather tiny group world wide, but in the States, it's a huge block.

Halbhh · Oct 13, 2020

Occams Barber said:
What you call the 'modern' secular usage of the word 'faith' actually pre-dates its use as a reference to the Christian church/religion.

General usage of 'faith' probably dates from the mid-13th century while usage specific to Christian 'faith' occurs about a century later. Usage in the sense of belief based on incomplete evidence appears between the two dates.
faith | Search Online Etymology Dictionary

OB

Etymology of English words is somewhat interesting occasionally, but when a key word in a discussion is used in highly differing ways it becomes more interesting, yes.

faith (n.)
mid-13c., faith, feith, fei, fai "faithfulness to a trust or promise; loyalty to a person; honesty, truthfulness," ....
From early 14c. as "assent of the mind to the truth of a statement for which there is incomplete evidence," ..."
faith | Origin and meaning of faith by Online Etymology Dictionary

So, there, starting early 14th century is the meaning which later would make it a good translation for the clear intended meaning in the gospels:

5 The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!”

6 He replied, “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it will obey you."

Of course, very obviously the meaning here isn't to merely be loyal to a person or a group or a tradition, but something else, as the context of the gospels overall makes quite certain. (we could also surmise then that only some relative few have the 'faith' meant here in this indication of what real 'faith' is.)

But for the OP using 'faith' in merely the sense of group identity and belonging...then the OP question and answer become pretty straightforward and obvious: 'yes' to whether a group identity faithfulness is at play in some knee jerk reaction to the reality of human caused global warming -- to deny it -- just a political identity (part of the tragedy of the republican party over the last few decades), of no great long run significance, as already the globe has decided to change to other forms of energy and is very far along in doing so. Even at today's low price for crude oil, we've already seen peak use, and demand is fading year by year now, and Tesla progressing rapidly to making electric cars just a better bargain in pure costs, closer all the time.

But in a way the OP is useful -- it's good to ask nominal 'Christians' what makes them oppose knowing the reality of man made global warming. Perhaps someone might think more about what real faith in the way Christ meant is, so different from a mere tradition or group identification.

@Caliban

Caliban · Oct 13, 2020

Halbhh said:
Etymology of English words is somewhat interesting occasionally, but when a key word in a discussion is used in highly differing ways it becomes more interesting, yes.

faith (n.)
mid-13c., faith, feith, fei, fai "faithfulness to a trust or promise; loyalty to a person; honesty, truthfulness," ....
From early 14c. as "assent of the mind to the truth of a statement for which there is incomplete evidence," ..."
faith | Origin and meaning of faith by Online Etymology Dictionary

So, there, starting early 14th century is the meaning which later would make it a good translation for the clear intended meaning in the gospels:

5 The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!”

6 He replied, “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it will obey you."

Of course, very obviously the meaning here isn't to merely be loyal to a person or a group or a tradition, but something else, as the context of the gospels overall makes quite certain. (we could also surmise then that only some relative few have the 'faith' meant here in this indication of what real 'faith' is.)

But for the OP using 'faith' in merely the sense of group identity and belonging...then the OP question and answer become pretty straightforward and obvious: 'yes' to whether a group identity faithfulness is at play in some knee jerk reaction to the reality of human caused global warming -- to deny it -- just a political identity (part of the tragedy of the republican party over the last few decades), of no great long run significance, as already the globe has decided to change to other forms of energy and is very far along in doing so. Even at today's low price for crude oil, we've already seen peak use, and demand is fading year by year now, and Tesla progressing rapidly to making electric cars just a better bargain in pure costs, closer all the time.

But in a way the OP is useful -- it's good to ask nominal 'Christians' what makes them oppose knowing the reality of man made global warming. Perhaps someone might think more about what real faith in the way Christ meant is, so different from a mere tradition or group identification.

@Caliban

I don't really see how the English etymology of the word faith helps anyone determine the meaning and context of a word Jesus used in Aramaic.

Halbhh · Oct 13, 2020

Caliban said:
I don't really see how the English etymology of the word faith helps anyone determine the meaning and context of a word Jesus used in Aramaic.

You are quite right if you think you'd need to listen to what Jesus said more fully, thus gaining more of the contextual sense, to better get the full and accurate sense of what He meant.

Caliban · Oct 13, 2020

Halbhh said:
You are quite right if you think you'd need to listen to what Jesus said more fully, thus gaining more of the contextual sense, to better get the full and accurate sense of what He meant.

I don't think the words of Jesus apply at all to a practical understanding of climate science. I think his words are instructive to help me understand what some of his modern day followers believe about present scientific realities.

Pavel Mosko · Oct 13, 2020

Caliban said:
One study suggest the answer is yes when combined with politics (among Evangelicals).

If you are not an Evangelical, what do you think about his?

Faith and politics mix to drive evangelical Christians’ climate change denial

Links to PEW Research data in the above article.

Yes but you don't have to be some kind of old school young earth fundamentalist to have problems with climate change idealogy. I have problems with climate changism as an old earth creationist, and there even noble prize winning scientists that have had problems with the climate change movement. Their have been systematic efforts to bury contradicting evidence by folks in that movement. The email scandal from years ago is the best example. Besides this there have been scientists with impressive credentials that disagree on climate change especially elderly ones from Britain that you never hear about... they have been shut down by the system. It interesting in the past the Eisenhower saying warning against the "military industrial complex" has been become a classic saying in politics with both the right and left at times, but much can be said of other "complexes" including the climate change one.

Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia

Nobel laureates stand against climate change

Halbhh · Oct 13, 2020

Caliban said:
I don't think the words of Jesus apply at all to a practical understanding of climate science. I think his words are instructive to help me understand what some of his modern day followers believe about present scientific realities.

Well, as someone that is very well read in the words of Jesus in the gospels (and for that matter all the common bible in full also), it says almost nothing about Earth's climate. In fact, scripture is concerned about our relationship with God, and is not about Earth and nature.... But there is one specific forecast, or prophecy though -- "...on the earth distress of nations in perplexity because of the roaring of the sea and the waves..." (Luke chapter 21). So, from the one thing that is actually said about climate -- that the seas will become far more stormy and a problem for coastal cities it seems...well, on this the scripture then seems to predict this current climate evolution then.

Caliban · Oct 13, 2020

Pavel Mosko said:
Yes but you don't have to be some kind of old school young earth fundamentalist to have problems with climate change idealogy. I have problems with climate changism as an old earth creationist, and their even noble prize winning scientists that have had problems with the climate change movement. Their have been systematic efforts to bury contradicting evidence by folks in that movement. The email scandal from years ago is the best example. Besides this there have been scientists with impressive credentials that disagree on climate change especially elderly ones from Britain that you never hear about... they have been shut down by the system. It interesting in the past the Eisenhower saying warning against the "military industrial complex" has been become a classic saying in politics with both the right and left at times, but much can be said of other "complexes" including the climate change one.

Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia

Nobel laureates stand against climate change

As addressed above in this thread, I don't think the Climate Research email controversy has anything to do with the actual scientific evidence involving climate change--it is simply a survey of opinions.

The second source you mentioned does not address disagreements over whether the planet is experiencing radical change, but how economic models may be corrected to meet the challenge of reducing carbon in the atmosphere. The Nobel laureates disagree over the economics of the challenge--not whether it is a fact.

Caliban · Oct 13, 2020

Halbhh said:
Well, as someone that is very well read in the words of Jesus in the gospels (and for that matter all the common bible in full also), it says almost nothing about Earth's climate. In fact, scripture is concerned about our relationship with God, and is not about Earth and nature.... But there is one specific forecast, or prophecy though -- "...on the earth distress of nations in perplexity because of the roaring of the sea and the waves..." (Luke chapter 21). So, from the one thing that is actually said about climate -- that the seas will become far more stormy and a problem for coastal cities it seems...well, on this the scripture then seems to predict this current climate evolution then.

Could you see how some might interpret that as a reason to permit climate change to advance unimpeded? If a person see this as Gods plan, why would they want to stop it?

Halbhh · Oct 13, 2020

Caliban said:
Could you see how some might interpret that as a reason to permit climate change to advance unimpeded? If a person see this as Gods plan, why would they want to stop it?

For those that believe, it's more like a prophecy, about what will happen, regardless of anything else. Well, perhaps someone will point out from scripture also we can learn that those that intentionally harm the Earth will be considered guilty of a major wrongdoing. From scripture, in more than one way, we can learn we are to be good stewards of the Earth. (e.g. for instance to obey Matthew 7:12, in that other people rely on the Earth; to harm the Earth is similar to doing harm to your neighbor's house for instance)

Pommer · Oct 13, 2020

This all comes down to whether one subscribes to:

“Human activity is changing the climate faster than evolutionary forces can adjust to; if humans make it impossible for species to survive then we, too, may be in grave danger!”
OR
“Human activity cannot affect climate and even if it did God will save us!”

NerdGirl · Oct 13, 2020

Caliban said:
One study suggest the answer is yes when combined with politics (among Evangelicals).

If you are not an Evangelical, what do you think about his?

Faith and politics mix to drive evangelical Christians’ climate change denial

Links to PEW Research data in the above article.

I don't personally know of anyone in my Christian circle who "denies" climate change. Only that climate change is completely man-made and therefore requires overbearing regulation from the government.

eleos1954 · Oct 13, 2020

Caliban said:
One study suggest the answer is yes when combined with politics (among Evangelicals).

If you are not an Evangelical, what do you think about his?

Faith and politics mix to drive evangelical Christians’ climate change denial

Links to PEW Research data in the above article.

Many Christians that I know and including myself do not deny climate change .... but ultimately we know from the Word of God that the planet is dieing ... does that mean we do nothing .... of course not ... but also we know ultimately this world will be destroyed and by God Himself ... no matter what we do or do not do.

Caliban · Oct 13, 2020

NerdGirl123 said:
I don't personally know of anyone in my Christian circle who "denies" climate change. Only that climate change is completely man-made and therefore requires overbearing regulation from the government.

You are correct that few people deny the climate is changing, but part of climate science includes the upstream reasons it is happening. The data points to human caused changes relating to the excessive release of carbon since the Industrial Age and the destruction of rain forests. This is something some conservative Evangelicals disagree with. The governmental response is also an important part of the discussion.

Is faith a factor in climate change denial?

Is faith a factor in climate change denial?

Yes

No

Unsure

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Dis Member

Well-Known Member

Everything You say is Life to me

Well-Known Member

Everything You say is Life to me

Well-Known Member

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic

Everything You say is Life to me

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Everything You say is Life to me

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

The untamed daughter

God is Love

Well-Known Member

Similar threads