"Religulous".....comments? (ducks and covers)

An interesting accumulation of further posts....

What I want to ask is this. Where is the place for 'God' in scientific explanations?

I ask that with total rhetoric as it has often been claimed that there is no need for the 'God' hypothesis.

For that reason, why believe him to be necessary?

In fact, let me quote H.L. Mencken (1925):

"Where is the graveyard of dead gods? In fact, what has become of Resheph, Baal, Anath, Astartem Ashtoreth, Hadad, El, Addu, Nergal, Shalem, Nebo, Dagon, Ninib, Sharrab, Melek, Yau, Ahijah, Amon-Re..........
.........Zaraqu, Qarradu, Suqamunu, Ura-gala, Zagaga, Uesas...

You may think I spoof, but those names are not invented. They were gods of the highest standing and dignity, worshipped and believed by millions. All were theoretically omnipotent, omniscient, and immortal.

And all are dead."

[AND I LEFT OUT ANOTHER 112 HE LISTED]

A religious explanations of our being here was the first and worst explanation.

Jon

Golly there is some rot being posted here abouts IMO!

One of the most Roman Catholic countries is Italy where they are facing a severe demographic prolems because of long term falling off of the birth rate!

Poland, one of the most devoutly Catholic of countries also has a similar problem, though less severe.

The Monty Python Sketch [about every sperm being Sacred] seems to be the basis of some fairly ill informed commentary I suspect.

Largely the problem with population grouth is related to the greater survival of infants nowadays, because of modern medicine. It seems to to take a few generations for people to moderate their familly sizes to account for increased survival rates among infants!

Often in the nineteenth century in the UK there were five or more children born for each couple, but in quite some number of cases many of these died. Nowadays the norm is fairly usually nearer two per couple, and only if there is an infant mortality is another planned.

With the advances in infant life saving medicine it is surely essential that this benison is accompanied with education about the problems of raising very large familiies of children, almost all of whom have the potential to survive with modern medicine.

I do tend to agree the world's number one problem - far more than the presently on-coming recession - is over population, but I for one think this should be dealt with with educational initiatives about the sustainability of this, and also the damaging of the prospects of off-spring if there are too many for the world to feed and gradually improve their standards of living. The more the population gets further out of control, the worse are the prospects for the next and future generations.

This does seem an area where the great religions have a blind spot, but simply blaming them for the problem is futile!

The blame lies with politicians who intiate medical aid for third world countries while not adding in the necessary educational programmes to explain the additional responsibilities that come with the blessing of successful modern medicine. If these politicians are in power as a result of democratic process, then one must start to consider that the general public [religious or atheistic, alike] of these donor countries are the fundamental problem for not asking the right questions of their elected servants - their political leaders, who make the medical aid initiatives possible in governement policy.

ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
... if you take a disagreement as anything other than the simple and honest opinion of another who holds his or her view just as honestly as you hold your own very different view.

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
Golly there is some rot being posted here abouts IMO!

Hi Ewan

Hey, cool it on the Smileys - your adding to the erosion of bandwidth...!

Please, if you get really bored, read my my post again, it does make (a little) bit of sense.

Woops, picking up your "words in brackets" writing style, Mr Meredith.

Best regards, Ian

quote:

Originally posted by 555:

Dear John,

I hold the opinion that simply blaming religion for population grouth is so over simplified as to be rot. That does not mean that I cannot be perfectly polite whilst robustly disagreeeing, does it?

I am not sure it was you who posted that religion was the fault though, as I only scanned through fairly roughly in terms of allocating whom I though might be talking what I think is rot!

Best wishes from George

quote:

Originally posted by 555:

quote:

Originally posted by JWM:
What?

You haven't heard about the Catholics then James?

What particular part of Catholic wanton destruction of the natural world would that be? (Which is what my 'what?' referred to.)

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:

quote:

Originally posted by 555:

Dear John,

I hold the opinion that simply blaming religion for population grouth is so over simplified as to be rot. That does not mean that I cannot be perfectly polite whilst robustly disagreeeing, does it?

I am not sure it was you who posted that religion was the fault though, as I only scanned through fairly roughly in terms of allocating whom I though might be talking what I think is rot!

Best wishes from George

No, it was me spouting the rot.

Posted on 13th March 2005 by me on this forum - search on "population"

"I am therefore not convinced that it will be enough to stop burning coal and oil. To save the planet as we know it today, I think we will have to dramatically reduce the population numbers (say) from 6 billion to 6 million "

And I don't think that talking "nicely" to the Pope or the top "mulla" is going to do the trick....

Nor do I think that "educating" third world countries to promote family planning as part of their side of any finacial "aid" package will be enough.

The Chineese have made a start, but I don't know how succesful their "one family - one child" policy is, nor how "acceptable" it is to Chineese people at large.

But one thing is for sure - there are too many of us to be sustainable with current global resources and our limited technical abilities to make good use of these resources, to enable 6 billion people to enjoy current western life-styles.

How do we tackle greed, selfishness and ignorance?

Cheers

Don

quote:

I hold the opinion that simply blaming religion for population grouth is so over simplified ...

Dear George

I would say it is one of a small number of main causes,
but my post quoting you was only fun - hence sequence of smilies.

Cheers - John

quote:

What particular part of Catholic wanton destruction of the natural world would that be?

The overpopulation part James, or as us pythonists sing ...

There are Jews in the world.
There are Buddhists.
There are Hindus and Mormons, and then
There are those that follow Mohammed,
But,
I've never been one of them.

I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is
They'll take you as soon as you're warm.

You don't have to be a six-footer.
You don't have to have a great brain.
You don't have to have any clothes on.
You're a Catholic the moment Dad came,
Because...

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Let the heathens spill theirs,
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.

Every sperm is wanted.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Every sperm is sacred.
Bride and Groom: Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood!

Every sperm is useful.
Every sperm is fine.
God needs everybody's.
Mine!
And mine!
And mine!

Let the Pagans spill theirs
O'er mountain, hill, and plain.
God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that's spilt in vain.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite iraaaaate!

George,

I am very encouraged by the news that Italy and Poland have declining birthrates. The real issue however lies in the USA (by virtue of relatively high population growth for a developed country combined with profligate use of resources per capita) and in developing countries where a low per-capita resource consumption figure is combined with exploding populations. As you point out, some of the growth rate is due to a mis-timing whereby infant mortality reductions are unmatched by a reduction in breeding. It is interesting though, that those developing countries are also amongst the most fundamentally religious on earth (Afghanistan, Somalia, etc). I allege one correlation (religiosity Vs birthrate/popn growth) - a more obvious one (inverse) is perhaps between per capita income and fertility rates. Doesn't support my rant, so I'll leave that one alone.

I have never suggested that religion is totally to blame for overpopulation - but increased birthrates is one of the many negative effects of organised religion.

What I am fervently against is "tribalism" in all its forms. Any person who CHOOSES to define their identity (or the identity of their children) on the basis of their tribal membership can (and do) potentially use this identity to justify all sorts of atrocities. From nationalists discriminating against immigrants to football thugs assualting members of other tribes (supporters of other teams), to the unfortunate young girl described here - the membership of the tribe too often seems to confer the right to abrogate oneself of personal responsibility. In the case of the 13 year old girl, the real tragedy is that she did not personally choose her tribe. It was chosen for her by her parents and endorsed by the overrarching relgious organisation.

For many, this abrogation of responsibility extends to caring for the natural world.

quote:

I have never suggested that religion is totally to blame for overpopulation - but increased birthrates is one of the many negative effects of some organised religion.

What I am fervently against is "tribalism" in all its forms. Any person who CHOOSES to define their identity (or the identity of their children) on the basis of their tribal membership can (and do) potentially use this identity to justify all sorts of atrocities. From nationalists discriminating against immigrants to football thugs....

I have added in the word "some". I don't think the C of E, for example, condems unprotected sex. But I might be wrong. On the basis of "religion", I don't think the C of E has accounted for any significant population growth. On the other hand, improved science, engineering and medicine HAS caused an explosion in population growth.

Again, many people on this forum have expressed strong views that religious wars and persecution has led to untold death and destruction. On balance, i'm not clear whether religion has caused an increase or a decrease in population! (BTW, I am not promoting religous wars)

On the business of "tribalism" you are on to a looser. You already belong to the "tribe" that wants to promote population reduction. and that other tribe called "aetheists", more specifically the branch of aetheists who whant to eliminate non-aetheist beliefs. You simply will NEVER get everybody to always agree about everything. Even when you are reduced to the last man and woman. So tribes are here to stay.

cheers

Don

Dear Winky,

I abhor "tribalism" and its associated modern counterpart of tribal nationalism, which is surely the most terrible group activity known to mankind. We do not have to look to far back in European history to see its effects, and it continues unabated ...

On the other hand I do not think it is quite what religion is about. Religion is a convenient coat hanger for the extremist to hang his cloak on, but that is hardly the fault of religion itself. Of course you can look back on some of the Popes for example and all I ask is this. Were such as the political appointments made on specious ground, producing truly Christian leaders, or merely another sort of nationalistic style elected monarchy which persued the same sort of interests as say England and France in a thousand odd years wort of semi-continuous warring.

In other words were these terrible Popes actually Christians, or not, and merely as corrupt and power hungry as the next political leader of their day? Of course we expect better in the modern age ...

The real teaching of the Christian Church and the other major religions is all about personal responsibility, responsibility to others, to others, even of different tribes. So the hyjacking of the Church for political ends really cannot actually be blamed on the fundamental message of Christianity, anymore than we can say Islam is essentially evil because there are some terrible terrorists who claim to be waging a Holy War.

The late Pope Jan Pawel II made significant moves towards healing the rift with Islam, which might be considered a rather brave thing for the leader of a rather conservative organisation! I suspect JP II really was a Saint. Now I realise that not everyone will see every action of his as being Saintly, but on balance he was one of the best of humans. Human, so not entirely free of fault it might be thought as well.

There are still mistakes being made. The Church is still not facing the AIDS issue in Africa, and this is a very terrible thing, but again it is a conservative body, which administers the Church for a huge number of people that is a failing to keep up rather there being anything inherently wrong with Christianity in the deepest sense.

I think it is possible to be Roman Catholic and still see the RC Church as imperfect and moving too slowly, but still be a good honest Christian.

I am not going to try to explain what is right about Christianity, most especially as its central tenets are widely known, and most of its laws accepted by Christians and non-Christians alike.

The Ten Commandments still make a good deal of sense today.

The Parable of the Good Samaritan still has more to tell us about racial integration than any number of modern secular politicians who mouth platitudes all too often and act differently.

For those who act against the teaching of the Church, but proclaim to be acting on religious conviction, I think that we have to conclude that they do not know their Bible well, and seek religious guidance from charlatans.

I find the religious right in the USA not much less terrifying than any other set of religious activist fundamentalists.

Strangely I do not see the Roman Catholic Church as being remotely threatening in the same way at all. Misguided on times, and that comes from a tradition that has not kept up with the modern world, but one can only hope for continuing reform and great leadership from true Christians like JP II.

_______________

On population growth, I think it is more a question of tribalism than a true adherence to the great religions of the world that encourages a sort chauvinistic "lets grow our population till it outstrips our enemies." Essentially population growth is usually among poorly educated people, and poorly educated people may proclaim a fundamentlist religious conviction - and in Islam there is a particular problem in the sense that there really is not a central leadership as there are with the major parts of the Christian Church [Orthodox, RC, Anglican etc] - but if we really look at the teaching of the great religions, it is on responsibility and fairness, honesty and charity, in outline, rather than belicose tribalism. Those who practice this belicose tribalism are hardly exemplary followers of their faith, but rather evil people bent on making an excuse for terrible behaviour. If they did not light on religion for this, then they would find some other flag to claim as a basis for their evil convictions.

Please do excuse this post. It is certainly meant in the kindest way.

I am always reminded of one Cardinal's reaction to Henry VIII's sacking of the Roman Catholic Church in England, "He wanted the goods of the Church, rather than the Good of it."

ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

quote:

I have never suggested that religion is totally to blame for overpopulation - but increased birthrates is one of the many negative effects of some organised religion.

What I am fervently against is "tribalism" in all its forms. Any person who CHOOSES to define their identity (or the identity of their children) on the basis of their tribal membership can (and do) potentially use this identity to justify all sorts of atrocities. From nationalists discriminating against immigrants to football thugs....

On the business of "tribalism" you are on to a looser. You already belong to the "tribe" that wants to promote population reduction. and that other tribe called "aetheists", more specifically the branch of aetheists who whant to eliminate non-aetheist beliefs. You simply will NEVER get everybody to always agree about everything. Even when you are reduced to the last man and woman. So tribes are here to stay.

cheers

Don

I don't think of myself as a member of a tribe that advocates population reduction. I base my opinion on observations of the destruction of the planet. As I travel with my job, I spend a lot of time looking out of aeroplane windows. To a first approximation, the world is entirely affected by human habitation. With the exception of the very dry deserts, arctic tundra and high mountains, there is no natural space remaining. The whole of the USA is farmed, paved or habitated. British Columbia where I live, is completely logged or farmed. There is virtually no old-growth forest left. Look at British Columbia on Google earth for a depressing picture. I personally value the natural world, not because some self-serving organisation tells me to, not because others do and certainly not because a self-referencing, contradictory ancient text tells me to, but because I observe it first-hand and find it beautiful and worth preserving - for its own sake - not simply for the purposes of exploitation.

I am indeed an atheist (perhaps strong agnostic to be accurate - definitions vary), but this is based on a lack of evidence to believe otherwise. Not because of indoctrination into a tribe by way of brainwashing, ceremony, fearmongering or social pressure.

I also do not use any of my views on these matters to justify atrocities (inflammatory forum posts notwithstanding ). Tribalism isn't a problem per se. It is the justification for prejudice and violence that it provides that is the issue.

A well thought out and articulated post George.

I am in agreement that a vast majority of religious people lead kind and caring lives. Their unselfish attitudes and actions are to be admired. I would argue however, that this behaviour doesn't actually stem from their religious beliefs. They are just fundamentally good people.

Literal reading of the scriptures offers little guidance on the choices that we should make with respect to those parts that should be taken seriously and those that should be regarded as "entertainment". The scriptures therefore offer little useful moral guidance.

The 10 commandments are quite interesting. The first 4 are clearly intended simply to perpetuate the underlying religion. I don't see any of the others as really needing validation by way of stories of burning bushes etc. They seem to me, a non-religious type, as just really good advice for getting on with each other. This is really the most profound stuff that a creator could come up with?

I totally agree that the religious right in the USA are as scary as any other fundies.

I agree with you that religion is a "convenient coat hangar" for extremists. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that those extremists can more-or-less rightly claim that their interpretation of the scriptures is the most literal and correct (after all, these holy books are the word of god) and therefore that the moderates are practicing a deficient form of the faith. Combine this with the claim for "respect" for faiths that makes the recruitment of potential apprentices unassailable under law and the extremists have a base for launching their actions. The insistence on "respect" and special treatment of those afflicted with religionism provides refuge for these extremist beliefs.

I don't want to single out islam (partly because I might be tracked down and killed) but in Australia, when clerics are pushed for opinions on terrorism after an attack, they say "we totally condemn the killing of the innocent". What they never elaborate on is who they consider innocent. Literal reading of their stupid book broadly defines the innocent as "those that embrace islam". Everyone else is fair game. Same with bible-belt fundies who bomb abortion clinics who seek philosophical refuge in the public statements like those of the moose-shooting VP ex-candidate nutjob.

The actions of religious extremists are becoming potentially significant for all of us as "rogue states" like the USA continue to hold planet-destroying power in their hairy palms. We all need to wake up before it is too late.

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:
I am in agreement that a vast majority of religious people lead kind and caring lives. Their unselfish attitudes and actions are to be admired. I would argue however, that this behaviour doesn't actually stem from their religious beliefs. They are just fundamentally good people.

Literal reading of the scriptures offers little guidance on the choices that we should make with respect to those parts that should be taken seriously and those that should be regarded as "entertainment". The scriptures therefore offer little useful moral guidance.

Firstly, there is no connection with people being "religious" and just being fundamentally good people, although you assume that there has to be. Secondly, there was no bible in the day of Jesus and his stories were an illustration to get his message across in the language of the day. The bible, it's stories and qualifications to make Jesus a messiah - virgin birth - all of that - came much later. That was politics.

Jesus was a philosopher that found that living a good life made a better world, and tried to illustrate that by helping one another with empathy, respect and love, we could find God - God being an inner peace and a reward in itself. This idea of living a good life not for the point of being compassionate, but because there is a reward of going to heaven at the end of it, isn't particularly a "Christian" way of thinking anyway. With the greatest respect Winky, I believe you are putting the spiritual message of Christianity in the same pot as historical fact, and you won't find historical facts within the teachings of Christianity. Just throw it out completely. Now you are left with the message that Jesus was trying to get across, and it's true that the church has failed many times by championing Christianity as a cause and losing sight that it is a personal philosophy. This is true of all religions. There is no deity sitting on a cloud, but an inner peace that can be gained from not caring what happens to yourself, but only caring for the ones you love. That's a release that can set you free and I believe that was what Jesus was trying to teach.

How we got here, what created the universe and parallel universes, dark matter etc etc, is science, and one day we might discover and be able to name the parallel dimensions that science tells us exists, and maybe some answers lie here, but that's one subject and this is another. If you are dismissing Christianity because of the anomalies as a science textbook, or as a historical document, then you've got the wrong end of the stick. I do believe that Jesus was a real person - a human, just like you and me - not born of a virgin and not able to do tricks.

Christianity is here still because men have carried it on, but these men, being human, have made mistakes. We all do. It is unfortunate to refer to religion as the institution, and not refer to the faith that lies behind it. We tend always, wrongly, to get these things all mixed together.

I actually am saying that there is no link between being religious and being a good person. That was the whole point I was making. Sorry if it wasn't clear.

We also seem to both agree that the bible is a bunch of stories. My issues is that some people use those stories to enshrine themselves in positions of power and to justify actions which are incompatible with general well-being of themselves and others. That people also use the bible to justify or underpin good actions doesn't outweigh this, as I would contend that these people are "good people" in spite of the bible (choose your holy text) - not because of it.

I try to be careful to differentiate between faith and religion. It is true that I do find faith in a creator illogical (but understandable as to why it exists). Faith by itself it isn't the main issue. It is when that faith leads to organised religion with all the associated negative behaviours that I am appalled.

As to creation. I take the simple view - We don't understand the origin of the universe. Maybe we never will. Get over it. Don't make stuff up.

As an analogy, I like the logic that someone used about understanding the human brain - "if it was simple enough to understand, we wouldn't be smart enough to understand it". It may be the same with the universe - "if it was simple enough to understand completely, it would be too simple for us to exist in".

I'm not dismissing organised religions because their holy books aren't science texts, nor because they contain outrageous stories but simply because the religions are mechanisms whose aims and outcomes are overwhelmingly bad.

It's true that unfortunately all churches (religions) are run by men, and therefore suffer the limitations of men. Such is life, but I have faith...

quote:

I actually am saying that there is no link between being religious and being a good person. That was the whole point I was making. Sorry if it wasn't clear.

Yet you are keen to lay the blame for the evil acts of a few fundamentalists at the door of religion. Seems a tad unfair to me. Accepting that faith (or lack of it) does not make much difference to the way that many people behave, the questions we need to answer are:

1. How many people behave better because of their faith?
2. How many people behave worse?
3. Which is greater, 1 or 2?

These are empirical questions, which no amount of armchair theorising will answer, in my view. The media is a highly biased evidence source, as good deeds are hardly ever deemed newsworthy.

Regards
Nigel

Also kindness often results in hundreds of small personal kindly acts that are too small to appear on the news media's radar, even if they do want to include a little "feel good" story at the end of a half hour of doom and gloom!

I do wonder why some otherwise mainly rational and good people opt for the option of "having faith." [This is of course rather different to professing to be religious of course}.

If I may I will give a little hint. We are brought up by people who we love or loathe. I was brought up in a very unhappy household, where my parents divorced when I was eight, and my father subsequently married another three times before I left home at nineteen years of age. He married again much later. My mother is only on her third husband, who happens to be six years younger than me! [And does not know that I exist]!

So you may conclude that I did not take my parents' behaviour as exemplary. This upset them both, but I have more sense than either of my parents. Neither were religious beyong using the Church to get married in [the first time], and for social reasons.

I was lucky enough to attend a very good school between the age of nine and thirteen, where I learned consideration, respect, honesty, kindness, and the rather important fact that it is just as important to be kind to the stranger as the friend. Guess you may realise that this was a profoundly Christian School, whose humane and comforting employment of the Holy Scrptures informed the happiest times of my life, and had a massive impact on the way I came out at the end.

I learned conscience and kindness, without search for reward. I think this has both left me open to being taken advantage of, and also to be about as happy as a person can be with his lot, though no doubt life has a way of turning up unpleasant surprises from time to time! I learned to love even people I ought to hate in the conventional wisdom, and the result was that I rarely have a bad relationship with any I know, or work with.

Yes I put my disposition and my scruples down to a deep rooted Christain culture. Not that I would ever preach to anyone. There are much brighter people to do that, who would make the case far better than me.

For a long time I tried to keep away from the Church for reasons of having such odd familly who were themselves pretend Christians. I attempted to see how I could use the "Question of evil," to make a reasoned arguement against the Church and Faith.

Then I read Dawkins [The God Delusion], and it so repelled me that I returned to my roots as exemplified by the scrupulous and respectful Christianity of my schooling, and am probably the most mild one you will find in terms of trying to pursuade anyone else to join in.

Some very good friends have asked me what motivates me, and then I can explain it.

Some who I know and have helped wondered at the possibility of truly altuistic actions. They assumed an agenda. To want something back for kindness negates the original kindness! That is what I draw from Christianity! Not any feeling of superiority, but rather a sense of purpose and strength from knowing that I must do the best I can, and then having done so, make peace where I fail. This is something that gives a huge comfort and strength to do the best thing even when everything about the situation suggests that a "cut and run grab for yourself policy" might be the rational answer. Rational, possibly, but allowing for contentment with the results where others have been done down because of it? Certainly not!

Christianity gives the promise of forgiveness if you are truly making confession. That is just as well for none of us are perfect all the time. But it is one heck of an incentive to try your best to be good, if you bring yourself to account ... regularly. Like a New Years resolution, but at least each week!

Forgive this, but I think it is important that someone - only an average Joe, rather than brain-box - makes some expanation of the strength that may be drawn from Faith. Thus it is offered not in a debated or arguementative sense, but one of hope, that it may be read and pondered, and hopefully pondered for the better.

In other words, had I followed my parents in their style [and absense of Faith] I think it is likely that I would have come out a much worse person for the lack of a Christian culture as offered [and rejected by some as was their free will to do, of course] in the school I was so lucky to attend as a young lad.

ATB from George

The content of this thread seems to have split between religion and over-population.....

quote:

I base my opinion on observations of the destruction of the planet. As I travel with my job, I spend a lot of time looking out of aeroplane windows. To a first approximation, the world is entirely affected by human habitation. With the exception of the very dry deserts, arctic tundra and high mountains, there is no natural space remaining. The whole of the USA is farmed, paved or habitated.[quote]
When I wrote my text on 13th March 2005 about over-population, I added something like "....and return to hunter-gatherer status"
Mankind has been a farmer for 10,000 years, most of our greenhouse gas is animal produced methane, we have de=forrested and grassed over much of the earth. But this, and our western desired lifestyle, is sustainable (I believe) with a modest population. Scrap the farming - and we are back to hunter-gathere and VERY small numbers.

I presume this is what you are promoting?


[quote]British Columbia where I live, is completely logged or farmed. There is virtually no old-growth forest left. Look at British Columbia on Google earth for a depressing picture.

I don't need Google Earth (but it is useful). I have flown about 200 hours in Alberta/BC and landed at virtually every landing strip between Cache Creek/Abbotsford/Pincher Creek/Springbank. I always carry a survival pack and expect to meet more bears than people if I ever came down unexpectidly. I have spent weeks if not months, back-packing between the US border and Grand Cache. Not much farm land and not much harvesting of trees. Growing and harvesting trees is farming, but absorbs carbon and delivers ogygen.........I think BC is "super natural" and Alberta likewise. OK, the Okanagan is farmed and artificially irrigated, but its not exactly the pitts, is it? OTOH, north of Edmonton you have........errr....nothing? (ok, diamonds, uranium, oilsands) Ithink you are worrying unecessarily.

quote:

I personally value the natural world................. because I observe it first-hand and find it beautiful and worth preserving - for its own sake

agree - in principle.

quote:

....not simply for the purposes of exploitation.

Mankind wants to survive. Man, and all animals, exploit natural resources to some extent.

cheers

Don

Anyone else thinking that this thread has more or less exhausted itself?

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
Also kindness often results in hundreds of small personal kindly acts that are too small to appear on the news media's radar, even if they do want to include a little "feel good" story at the end of a half hour of doom and gloom!

I agree wholeheartedly with this. Our everyday lives depend upon the "kindness of strangers" in countless ways, that are easy to miss, because they are so pervasive.

quote:

Then I read Dawkins [The God Delusion], and it so repelled me that I returned to my roots as exemplified by the scrupulous and respectful Christianity of my schooling, and am probably the most mild one you will find in terms of trying to pursuade anyone else to join in.

Talk about unintended consequences! I think anyone with a reasonably mature faith (i.e. *not* fundamentalists, with their childish dogmatism) will find Dawkins' book quite laughable. He's a fine scientist, but he literally does not know what he is talking about when it comes to the subject of faith.

Glad you've found something that works for you, George!

Regards
Nigel

quote:

Anyone else thinking that this thread has more or less exhausted itself?

Winky hasn't been converted yet so....no!

cheers

don

Some closing thoughts in that case:

Many of our human ailments, from lower back pain to hernias, prolapsed uteruses and our susceptibility to sinus infections, result directly from the fact that we now walk upright with a body that was shaped over hundreds of millions of years to walk on all fours. Our consciousness was also raised by the cruelty and watsefulness of natural selection. Predators seem beautifully "designed" to catch prey animals, while the prey animals seem equally beautifully "designed" to escape them.

Whose side is God on?

Jon

How unfair to try a trick question on us Jon!

There is no answer, because there is no God ...