Christian anti-science & Human future

[Justin]

Currently I am discussing the effects of christian anti-science on the future of humanity with a CoE rev. Here's a few points I have so far:

The list of current religious incursions into science are manifold and the dangers for humanity are massive.

Rejection of Evolution
- reduced medical capabilties,
- lack of understanding of social dynamics (ie stymying societal development!),
- inability to deal with hereditory disorders

Rejection of Population control
- science shows the planetary pop limit is 5 Billion, 1Bn are currently starving and living in poverty QED

Rejection of Global warming
- a greatly reduced planetary population limit
- high potential for war over resources

Rejection of Sexual protection
- millions dying in Africa
- millions more neurotic, repressed people feeling guilty about being human

Rejection of medicine
- pandemics, unnecessary deaths, non-acceptance of anti-aging
- anti human enhancement

Non-overlapping Magisteria
- science is muzzled on topics that may have otherwise been optimised.

Any others? Are the effects listed valid? If the anti-scientists had their evil ways with us what would be the effect?

[Loki]

Science points out the problems with the fantasy. Science comes from edumication. Solution, stop edumicating people in science. Outcome, rise in belief in illogical crap (homeopathy works, trust me: Monica from Brisbane wants to have sex with you right now, just give me your credit card details), slow descent into barbarity and madness.

[wolty]

Justin, good post. Maybe include something on promoting apathy ie. god will fix it, no matter what "it" is.
I know this is about science but what about the effect of religion splitting families up with regards to one person believing something and others not?

[Jarod:)]

well done.
couldn't have said it better.

[wearestardust]

Any others? Are the effects listed valid? If the anti-scientists had their evil ways with us what would be the effect?

"If"? They are having their ways with us - in ways you have already noted. Global warming looms: even if the world took serious action right now it would only mitigate effects; but the populace are soothed by deniers into the idea that they can just relax and keep pumping carbon.

Billions of dollars spent on 'alternative' medicines that could be spent on proper health care (or practically anything else that would be useful, or even amusing).

Diseases reappearing due to lowering vax rates

AIDS epidemic in Africa


(I'm not sure that NOMA is a problem for science - it just provides an excuse for some to cling to their illusions?)

[Loki]

Christian anti-science promotes pseudoscience of all types. The attempt by IDiots to sound like "scientists", whatever that means, in order to promote their own rubbish makes it harder for the layman to differentiate between genuine science and made up rubbish.

Examples:

Put this in your car, it's proven to reduce your fuel bill.

Plug this into your house, it's proven to cut your power bills (choice covered this one recently).

Has retinal hydrated micro spheroids, proven to make you look like Megan Gale, and our actors are wearing lab coats so it has to be true.

Run your car on hydrogen, buy our kit and produce your own fuel as you drive.

Numerous over-unity energy frauds, and other perpetual motion machines, proving the second law is wrong apparently.

But to address some of your excellent headings:

Rejection of evolution.

All modern plant and animal breeding is dependent on a knowledge of DNA and basic evolution. Without this people starve.

Rejection of Sexual protection

Entire civilisations are essentially collapsing due to the loss of almost an entire generation in some cases, along with all the dysfunction, famine, poverty and abuse which that entails. All for the want of a little rubber thing on the end of your cock, sinners.


Rejection of Global warming

Increased intensity and frequency of natural disasters.
Increase in diseases like malaria, scarlet fever, yellow fever, Q fever, Dengue.
Decrease in diversity of plants and animals resulting in reduced environmental buffering leading to increased pest damage to crops, leading to less food. Also leading to increase in weeds and pests, which promotes land degredation and increased incidence of fire.

Rejection of medicine

Reduced capacity to produce novel treatments. Reduced capacity to effectively use the treatments we have.
Reduced capacity to fight resistance in disease organisms.

Really, you could go on and on. Maybe your friend has a few reasons why life would be better without science.

[Atrax Robustus]

Once upon a time, I sparked a massive debate by asking some christians what they considered their lives might be like if the enlightenment had occurred 700-800 years earlier. :mad:

[atheist_angel]

Non-overlapping Magisteria
- science is muzzled on topics that may have otherwise been optimised.
Great list. :)

It really is infuriating how they cherry-pick their science, just same way they cherry-pick the bible.

It's like they're missing the "all or none" gene man.:eek:

[Seamus]

Rejection of Population control
- science shows the planetary pop limit is 5 Billion, 1Bn are currently starving and living in poverty QED

That is certainly a common opinion,but it's misleading to assert it is accepted scientific orthodoxy. It is not. The view is still common that famine is not caused by world shortages, rather by the world economic system.There is also a common view that the earth can support a far greater population than at present.


The question seems to assume that "we" can decide how large the population should be and then figure out how to implement the decision. At present there is no mechanism for making a decision about world population or for implementing any such decision. We will return to the question of decision and implementation, but first we consider population trends. (The main Sustainability article (http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/index.html) presents evidence that 15 billion can be accomodated at an American standard of living.)
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/population.html

I make no claim,I simply present an alternate view.

Rejection of Global warming
- a greatly reduced planetary population limit
- high potential for war over resources I accept that global warming as true,and that it is caused largely by human behaviour,as likely. I act as if that is the case.However,I do not know the truth for a fact. Neither does anyone else. It is right and proper for scientists to continue to question and even to reject the interpretation of the evidence.

BUT,my perception(possibly wrong) is that the great oil wars have already begun.World demand for oil is already greater than the supply and demand is increasing exponentially. Production is not.

It's my hope that I'll be dead before global warming becomes personally inconvenient. --If,as I suspect it's all perfectly true ,were fucked. Politicians everywhere are making a pig's breakfast of the issue with their insistence on presenting economic and political responses to an environmental problem.The humbuggery of the carbon tradings scheme infuriates me.

Politicians should not be trusted with anything which actually matters.

[Homosapien]

Great post.



End Result With Religion and God at the Helm - Extinction.


- A Static species will eventually become an extinct species.

- Religion likes things to stay as they are (the same, dogma). They do not generally like change, or the questioning of their faith/rules/books. Stick to the book many preach. 'Be static and unchanging.'

- Evolution is the fight, to not become extinct. To evolve. To survive.

- Science can help us survive massive natural disasters that would otherwise wipe us out.

- Religion uses hoping, wishing and praying for their solutions.

- Religion and God is the Recipe for Extinction! (I would not be surprised if the dinasours believed and prayed to god/s as well. I'de love to see a cartoon comic of this. Hee hee)

- Only reason, logic, science, innovation, co-operation, continual evolution, and the will to survive will keep a species from eventual extinction. (Remember that we eventually need to one day get off this planet and find another one similar to this one, as a very long way down the track this planet will eventually become enveloped by our sun as it expands.)

- Only a Dynamic and Continuosly evolving species can survive eventual extinction. (Remember there is still no solid evidence that the universe will collapse back on itself and end either. For all we know it still may continue to run for eternity. We still need more infromation before we can be sure of it's eventual fate. I'm 'hoping' further research points to the later :) )

[Kookaburra Jack]

You might want to add "Papal censorship".
See the "Librorum Prohibitorum".
It has three phases:

(1) Codex from 325 CE (Eusebius) to the printing press.
(2) Printing Press and Vatican support to the year 1966 CE
(3) Now maintained on the net 1966 to 2010. (Ratzinger)

[Justin]

Cheers Loki, Wolty & WSD: I think those warrant an extra heading:

Rejection of Scientific Method with your points piled underneath...I'll edit the list in a bit...
Rejection of Sexual protection

Entire civilisations are essentially collapsing due to the loss of almost an entire generation in some cases, along with all the dysfunction, famine, poverty and abuse which that entails. All for the want of a little rubber thing on the end of your cock, sinners.

I think I prefer your wording :D

That is certainly a common opinion,but it's misleading to assert it is accepted scientific orthodoxy. It is not.

LOL..<holds out porridge bowl for Seamus>
Yeah.. I was listening to a recent Science Show (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/default.htm) episode on some subject or other that discussed how humankind's Ecological Footprint (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint) was measured in terms of Global Hectares (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_hectare). In 2006 there were 11.9 gha available (based on current technologies for providing resources) and 6.6Bn humans = 1.8 gha/person. The av. Australian uses 7gha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint) (but we have a lot of hectares!) while places like Combodia use less than 1 gha/person. This certainly indicates that the poorer countries are paying for most of the western world's use (economics as you say). The trouble is that in 2006 we actually used 17.1Bn gha ...an overuse of ~20% that is effectively taken from those poorer countries (and the future). Currently its ~6.8Bn on the planet with about 1.1 Bn in extreme poverty and a 20% overuse of resources. Is that a QED?

John McCarthy's assessment might be correct IF we had the technologies he suggests (eg for power) in place (which we don't) which would effectively raise the total gha for the planet. He is right about human willpower to change the situation using technology but thus far we don't (and let's think of who is standing in the way...hmmm..let me see :p).

Alas, JMC is irresponsible to be suggesting that we should be copulating towards populating (blame Flakko) as the situation is going to get worse before people work it out. Unfortunately 3rd world nations *do* contribute heavily to population and that's where starvation will increase the most. Get ready for the human waves breaking against Oz's Pacific Solution!

Re: climate change....

JMC notes that a warmer climate will benefit some countries (and he's quite right!), but only in the short term. Russia and us! (HINT: buy land in NT, sell land in SA <gulp>) Similarly some places will freeze over temporarily due to the collapsed gulf stream. UK & Scandinavia will have cheaper Ski holidays I'm sure.

Something that is rarely discussed is that climate change is a limited exponential growth toward a different atmospheric phase with different stabilisation characteristics. Not good. So don't expect any benefits to last for very long...<eek>

Scientists *do* remain sceptical but it appears pretty clear that its happening and faster than predicted.

Just have a look at 2004...and we're already up from that...
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/thumb/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png/350px-2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Nice summary HS...Many believe Fundamentalism has risen dramatically as a resistance to change. This is just a tad counter-adaptive.

[Ford]

Entire civilisations are essentially collapsing due to the loss of almost an entire generation in some cases, along with all the dysfunction, famine, poverty and abuse which that entails. All for the want of a little rubber thing on the end of your cock, sinners.

Excuse me for choosing this point from many other good points. I do so because sex intersts me more than most others and like Tiger in the Year of the Tiger it caused me most grief. I'm now out of the woods but he isn't. :D Poor bugger!
From maybe ten millennia ago to the age of my grandparents, when each day presented dangers to survival that no longer exist, humans needed to produce enough offspring that some would survive.

At 6bn we seem to reasonably safe from fading away so it is time for us to recognise our strong sexual urges as having been necessary in the past, a lot of fun in the present and the glue in many reltationshiips . No need for serial pregnancies now, but we do need 'our little rubber things' or whatever else medical science can think up to keep us sexually healthy and emotionally balanced.

Unfortunately, as Christopher said, 'Religion poisons everything' so we are lumbered with those who would condemn our sexuality as sinful and control us with guilt! A pox on their ignorant houses! :mad:

[nari]

Oil wars may have already started, what with the brits noseying around the Falklands' reserves and Brazil, Chile and Venezuela coming, in theory, to back up Argentina's objections.
Water wars may be next on the list.

Starvation of large populations is only partly due to droughts; the economic/political agenda is a prime factor. Any benefits from moving to a cooler place due to temperature rise would be short-term as areas in Canada and Russia don't necessarily have the soil to produce crops.
Not many useful volcanoes in northern Canada or Siberia....

nari