Re: [asa] AAAS President Keynote Address

From: <>
Date: Thu Feb 22 2007 - 10:43:51 EST

It is true, I know nothing. I am not sure how I even got
to be an ASA member to be truthful.

But to clarify my point I am not saying that we should not
work along side environmentalists, and that we as
Christians should not have concerns about preserving

If one was to adopt environmentalism as a religion, I do
think that is unfortunate. I am also concerned that if
Holden has become an Environmentalist that he might lead
others astray. Which is not to say that we should shun
him or not work beside him. But I also do not think that
we should be endorsing his point of view.

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:08:53 -0500
  "George Murphy" <> wrote:
> Comments in red.
> Shalom
> George
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jack
> To: George Murphy ;
> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 10:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] AAAS President Keynote Address
> A commitment to something other than my own faith?
> George, it sounds like you are saying that
>environmentalism is equivalent to Christianity. Whatever
>flavor suits you is ok. Dont you think that there is
>only one true faith? I dont see what is wrong about
>being "defensive" about Christ vs environmentalism.
> It "sounds like" that only if you're tone deaf. I
>neither said nor implied nor left room for the
>implication that "environmentalism is equivalent to
>Christianity" or that whatever flavor suits me is OK.
> You're the one claiming that environmentalism is a
>religion, & by implication a bad religion. OK, to the
>extent that that's the case, respond to it by presenting
>good religious views. The best defense is a good
>offence. E.g., one might point out that in speaking of
>"tithing" the person has already entered a bit into the
>biblical tradition, & then find ways to invite him/her to
>enter into it more deeply.
> Presenting a positive view of my own faith? What does
>faith have to do with concerns about environmental
>degradation? That would apply to Christian and secular
>interests. I honestly dont see how the Christian faith
>has a monopoly on environmental concerns.
> Obviously you know nothing about all the work that's
>been done by Christian theologians over the past ~40
>years on the environment. You might start with Redeeming
>Creation: The Biblical Basis for Environmental
>Stewardship (IVP, 1996) with contributions from Fred Van
>Dyke, David C. Mahan, Joseph K. Sheldon and Raymond H.
>Brand. (The latter 2 have been active ASA members. Van
>Dyke used to belong.) Two books by the Lutheran
>theologian H. Paul Santmire, The Travail of Nature and
>Nature Reborn, both published by Fortress, are very good.
> In spite of its title, the little book God is Green:
> Ecology for Christians, by Ian Bradley (Doubleday, 1992)
>is helpful. Earlier I mentioned statements by churches.
> The one I'm most familiar with (since I was on the task
>force that developed it) is the ELCA's "Caring for
>Creation" statement which you can find at
> .
> None of which is to say that Christianity has a
>monopoly on environmental concerns, which would be
>absurd. One of the things Christians need to be able to
>do is work on such matters with non-Christians to the
>extent that that is consistent with their faith
>commitments. But Christianity does have distinctive
>theological motives for such concerns.
> But my point, which you have ignored, is that I am
>concerned that the leader of the AAAS is resorting to
>religious terminology in front of a secular audience,
>whether it is unintentional, or whether he is
>intentionally tapping into this motivation.
> I have not ignored your point at all. My response has
>been (a) to a certain extent, so: People can have, as I
>noted, many different ultimate concerns, (b) the best way
>to respond to a challenge which is religious is with a
>better religious position.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: George Murphy
> To: Jack ;
> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 10:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] AAAS President Keynote Address
> Why adopt such a fearful attitude & jump into a
>defensive posture as soon as someone else starts
>displaying a commitment to something other than your own
>faith? Of course plenty of people have other religious
>commitments, though many will not recognize them as
>religious. Why not try presenting a positive view of
>your own faith - which was what I was suggesting, & what
>you've ignored.
> Shalom
> George
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jack
> To: George Murphy ;
> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 10:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] AAAS President Keynote Address
> 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
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jack
> To: Rich Blinne ;
> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 8:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] AAAS President Keynote
> Arent you at all concerned that
>environmentalism, just like atheism, and materialsim, and
>any other numerous ism's, are a substitute for
> 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
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 5:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] AAAS President Keynote
> 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
> That is a zealous religion of defending the
> 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 Thu Feb 22 09:38:46 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Feb 22 2007 - 09:38:46 EST