On the "Spiritual Left" and Science

[lhynard]

I read an interesting article the other day in one of my science magazines. I am used to reading countless articles about how horrible "right wing" Christians are to science and how they must be stopped at any cost. It is pretty scary reading the vehemence with which these scientists write, and I am getting sick of it. (Now, while I think that most

Comments

[triphicus]

But at the same time, God created man to be a "shepherd" over the Garden of Eden. Thus, the first task given us by God was to take care of his creation; after the Fall occured, God did not abolish mankind's responsiblity to creation, but rather seemed to intensify it by stating that we would have to work and toil on the land. Volcanoes might be bad for the environment, but they by no means erupt every single day. We need look no further than the gaping hole over Antarctica to observe the terrible extent to which the effect of human* carelessness/thoughtlessness has had on God's good world. (God also never said that creation was no longer "good" after the Fall

[lhynard]

I think you are adding to what I've actually stated. I agree strongly that man is to be a shepherd of God's creation and that that responsibility has in no way gone away since the Fall. Certainly, human carelessness has caused much damage to our environment

[triphicus]

I know that you weren't trying to argue the benefits of human waste, but I was just taking issue with your statement that volcanoes are worse than human pollution. I see your point that pollution is made up of the same chemical compounds that can be found, in one form or another, on the periodic table. But at the same time, many of the elements are not meant to be linked to one another (e.g. halocarbons). Even when looking at such travesty's as the nuclear bomb, one can see that human beings have almost dug their own grave with the extreme extent to which they have taken science. Yes, we have the ability, since we are created by God to share the same faculties of reasoning and therefore ability to create (on a lesser level) as he has. At the same time though, what separates us from the other beasts is a self-awareness, and therefore a sense of responsibility, to ourselves and the world around us

[lhynard]

But at the same time, many of the elements are not meant to be linked to one another (e.g. halocarbons).
This is simply not true. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of CFCs made by marine creatures. (This article from a science magazine confirms this: http://www.c3.org/chlorine_knowledge_center/bbc7.html) I have seen many presentations on the topic, being in biochemistry. And not just CFCs, there are biological creatures that make plastics naturally as well.

We really know very little about the ozone layer and how it functions. And the theories on it are changing constantly.

Where did you get your statistics on percentages of chlorine? Because I have seen very different figures.

In any case, regardless of the particular issue of the ozone layer, and regardless of whether natural disasters or man is more damaging to the environment, I agree with you that we have responsiblity to shepherd our planet.

[ubersecret]

"Parasites live to painfully drain the life out of their hosts."

Or do they painfully drain the life out of their hosts to live?

;)

[lhynard]

Yeah, yeah, but you know what I'm getting at....

[mathiasroesel]

"The idea of a "Mother Earth" is dangerous to science because of the view that Mother Earth is always good,"

How about a non-personal concept of Mother? Like seedbed or matrix?

"it therefore must be good. One need not look far to see how absurd an idea this is. Animals massacre each other,"

What is your specific category of good in this case? Young Urban Professional, never-been-to-the-woods? *kidding*

"Frankly, we have no idea how God originally made anything."

Speaking of God, why not take a look into Scripture. As far as I read, man corrupted by sin, but not creation. Correct me if I'm wrong.

To sum up, I'm a little puzzled by the notions you present here.

[mathiasroesel]

man corrupted by sin

man was corrupted by sin, that is.

[lhynard]

How about a non-personal concept of Mother? Like seedbed or matrix?
Yes, this is often how "she" is described, yet in practice, it is always assumed that "she" is good, that the "natural" is inherently better than the man-made. I see this as flawed and unsupported by any evidence. It is an assumption, a world view.What is your specific category of good in this case? Young Urban Professional, never-been-to-the-woods? *kidding*
a fair question

[mathiasroesel]

"natural" is inherently better than the man-made. I see this as flawed and unsupported by any evidence. It is an assumption, a world view.

Good as a category in itself is an assumption which in any case must be qualified.

"Good" for them is whatever enhances humanity. Now, they are concerned about the environment -- they do not want to lose species to extinction, they do not want to lose forests and habitats -- but they do want to improve on everything for the benefit of man.

That does not make things clearer. Conceptions of humanity or man, introduced by scientists who get their financial support from interested companies, more often than not do more good to those companies than to humanity or man. Bad things they want to abolish just fit into their agenda. They want your best--and will probably get it. Enough said, scientists' conceptions of Good have no relevance in this context.

I look to Scripture for indications of what a good world would look like.
Life after final redemption is the broadest concept of good I can think of.

[dogs_n_rodents]

From this faulty idea come ideas that "organic" foods somehow must be better,

I love to quote my father when I hear people talk about Organic foods. "What? So the strawberries I've been eating all of my life were inorganic?! I thought they contained carbon!" ;)

Ironically, many Christians hold to many of these beliefs, not realizing their pagan origins.

This, like many other "Christian traditions" (yes, I'm poking at my own Catholic upbringing here) are pagan rooted traditions that most Christians (i.e., Catholics) are completely ignorant of, which makes me wonder how much homage we're really giving to Christ if we've taken these traditions and made them "good" by putting Christ at the center of them? How possible is it to make these practices potentially spiritually crippling to the practicee if taken in the wrong context? I can't propose an answer really, but these are questions I've thought about extensively during my college years having seen people become so distraught over things like loosing their scapulars or their

[lhynard]

http://www.the-scientist.com/2006/7/1/48/1/

and

http://www.the-scientist.com/2006/7/1/13/1/

[dogs_n_rodents]

For both of those links, it says I need to be subscribed to read the articles.

[lhynard]

Oh, sorry.

The Scientist is free to life scientists like ourselves. You might as well get a subscription.