Re: [asa] AAAS President Keynote Address

From: Jack <>
Date: Wed Feb 21 2007 - 22:09:54 EST

George said:
"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. "

I am not at all suggesting that we should be denying legitimate concerns about the environment, I am asking why a leader of a secular organization is resorting to religious terminology. If it is unintentional, it is unfortunate because it supports the views of Crichton et al, if it is intentional, what does that say about the integrity of the data, if anything? I would not have questioned it otherwise, but it makes me wonder why he would resort to this tactic.

"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."

Well who knows. But why did Holden even make it an issue?
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Jack
    To: Rich Blinne ;
    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
      Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 5:24 PM
      Subject: Re: [asa] AAAS President Keynote Address

      On 2/21/07, <> 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 with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Feb 21 22:11:01 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 21 2007 - 22:11:01 EST