I am not anti-faith. If you have a religious faith, I am sure that I don’t share it, but if it helps you live better in any way, good for you. Although I try to avoid fruitless discussions of things that can’t be seen or measured, I don’t deny that the kinds of things traditionally believed “by faith” could exist. What disturbs me is the kind of religious faith that conflicts with reality as we know it.
In a previous post, I mentioned young earth creationism, and the related issue of evolution. It seems that Christian fundamentalists (fundies) hate the theory of evolution because it provides a way around divine creation. Note that not all Christians believe this way, there are those who accept both creation and evolution. It is a little surprising to me that fundies also tend to hate climate change, aka global warming. Here is a good example of that, from Dr. Cal Beisner of the Cornwall Alliance.
You can view more of the interview at Liberals Unite (15 minutes). It’s worth viewing, darkly entertaining. In that short span, I counted 9 or 10 of the standard, thoroughly debunked arguments against the generally accepted science of climate change, plus the idea that addressing the problem would require massive government control on a global scale. I suppose that brings up the specter of one-world government and all the prophecies from Revelation.
You problem is faith
Beisner’s overall argument rests on the appeal to authority. He frames it as a debate between two beliefs, one held by most climate scientists, the other by Bible scholars. This is a false premise. Researchers don’t believe in climate change. Science isn’t about faith, it’s about results. The theory that global average temperature is rising because of human CO2 emissions is accepted because the data overwhelmingly supports it, and for no other reason.
Fundamentalists are unlikely to be convinced by any kind of data, if it contradicts their interpretation of the Bible. Beisner starts from the position that the Bible (as he understands it) is accurate, so reality must be interpreted in a way that does not contradict it. Perhaps it would be better to look at the environment as scientists do, and interpret the Bible in such a way that it does not contradict reality.