Re: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon
Hello Richard, stupid ideas presented by religious folks rather than religious doctrines. Then, for instance, when the Old Testament claims that humans were created by an omnipotent god, is it a problem of people misinterpreting the holy texts? What else are people supposed to read? I am afraid that the problem comes from religious doctrines, which mislead religious folks and push them to believe a false yet reassuring vision of the world. I feel that it is a bit too easy to reject all the responsibility on religious folks who would just misunderstand or misuse what was written. Even if they did, they still represent the majority that form and define the content of the various religions, and so they ARE the religions. I could point to a long list of bad scientific ideas too. Here's one just for fun (...) There is a fundamental difference that you omit and that I already mentioned repeatedly in my previous posts: as you know, science never considers anything as truth as the scientific method is built upon the Cartesian doubt. As a consequence, science has never intended to give any unquestionable truth while allowing and promoting to challenge current ideas. Religion does not. Religions are built on fundamentals that they consider as undeniable and unquestionable truth and they do not allow for any doubt on these (hence the many historical wars, the schisms, and also the modern war machine tactics that I mentioned in a previous post). Therefore, the parallel that you propose does not stand, because the errors that you present are acceptable in a scientific paradigm, while the mistakes of the Christian church that we mentioned are contradictory with the intrinsic truth that it claims to promote and without which it becomes inconsistent and moot. Rather, I want to point out that you are focusing on only the negative aspects of religion and spirituality. There is a simple reason for this. I cannot find any positive aspect, and none of my interlocutors so far have been able to tell me any. Note that in my previous post, I have been asking for even a single example of benefit that religions have offered mankind in several millennia of existence, and which would support the idea that they could cross-fertilize science. Again, I would be glad to hear about any (especially considering the enormous amount of fatalities and destructions that they have historically inflicted upon mankind). I would similarly suggest that as far as I know most religious folks are now on board with the idea of a round earth. It seems to me that this really does not serve your point. They do not believe in a flat Earth anymore, not because of religious advances, but because of scientific discoveries (which were contrary to religious doctrines and were accordingly violently rejected by religious folks). Also, it took quite a lot of time for this to happen (having to wait until 1992, several men on the Moon, numerous satellites orbiting around Earth, to finally hear the Pope praise Galileo...) and for the scientific ideas to enter general knowledge to a point at which it became unsustainable for the Church to maintain their support of statements from the holy texts that were obviously wrong. This is not a sign of open-mindedness and will to serve mankind, but a proof of the nonsensical statements of holy texts and what I called the war machine tactics in my previous post. Finally, it is the same religion that pushes people nowadays towards the idea of creationism that you disapprove of. What is the difference here? In your opinion, why does the Church continue to support such ideas from the holy texts? Also, you were suggesting positive aspects of religions. Then what is the use of a form of spirituality which one shall defend, but only until it is obsoleted by science (which it always has been... again, any counter-example would be necessary)? I find it immensely frustrating and baffling how many Americans are willing to throw away the findings of evolutionary biology in order to maintain an overly literal interpretation of a passage written in a book thousands of years old. In my opinion, this happens because of two reasons (outside of the obvious education problem): 1. They simply read the holy texts... and they believe it, which is what religion is about. I really cannot condemn them for this. 2. Please do not take it personally, but I believe that having some scientists tell them that science is compatible with the holy texts is only aggravating the situation. Many modern believers (Christians but also Muslims) talk about problems of interpretation to explain the inconsistency between the holy texts and what is. I think that are only two ways of reading: taking literally (which should be the suitable form of reading for a text which is supposed to help and be useful to mankind...), or interpreting. In the latter case, you can have any sentence mean anything, so the text becomes useless (or an interesting versatile
Re: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon
Hi Christian, I'm afraid that I jumped into this discussion a little late and may have missed some of the earlier points you made. I will try to address them now as I understand them from your allusions in this last post. I think our main difference here is that you are painting with a very broad brush when you talk about religions. For example, you say that if one does not take scripture literally, then I believe that you are not what is defined as Christian or even believer, but somebody reading the Bible as any other novel or essay (no negative meaning here) and thinking about life. You are a philosopher, and you are not part of the billions of believers which form what is referred to as the Christian religion. I argue that terms like religion and spirituality cast a much larger net than what you are describing and actually includes what you describe as a philosopher. There are many, many folks who take a far more humble approach to their religious or spiritual life. Even the term spiritual has become preferred by many over religious because they feel that religious connotes the kind of rigidity and arrogance you describe. But that's really a sidebar. More to the point, I'll take up the challenge of positive influences from religion. When we talk about positive influences from science, what we really mean are good things that scientists have done or accomplished through adherence to the scientific method. So, I'll point to good things or accomplishments religious folks have done in adherence to and motivated by their religious beliefs. Here's a sense of the baby I wouldn't throw out with the bathwater. Mohandas Gandhi is the first person who comes to mind. Most of us know he was a pioneer in nonviolent civil resistance. He also spent a lot of his time trying to access truth in a rather nonscientific way. His autobiography is call The Story of My Experiments with Truth. The experiments in the title doesn't indicate stats or a control group so much as a sense of humility with which he approached the topic. Perhaps its fitting to put Martin Luther King Jr. next in line in light of his admiration for Gandhi. He and his band of ministers had a powerful impact on civil rights in the US. Probably enough said on him. Mother Theresa probably deserves a spot on the short list. She actually reported receiving a call from God to help others. As I mentioned, I'm dubious of such direct links, but her call led her to found the Missions of Charity which now has hundreds of missions around the globe dedicated to relieving suffering of the poor and sick, not to mention her Home for Dying, which accepts people of any religion. Albert Schweitzer, who you may think of more as a philosopher, but the work he did in Africa stemmed largely from his Christian beliefs, which told him that he had a responsibility to give back to the world. I'll even throw Jimmy Carter into the mix. Not a great president, but the work he's done to negotiate peace around the world and to house people through Habitat for Humanity are commendable. He's a born again Christian, a category that I tended to associate with the misguided and rigid ideas that you've cited, but I listened to him in a Fresh Air interview a few years back and was quite impressed by his humility regarding his own spiritual beliefs. My point here is that these people were motivated by their religious and/or spiritual beliefs to do amazing things that, I believe, have helped the world. Most of them didn't run around quoting scripture or trying to sell their particular brand of spirituality to others. Rather, they were motivated by and spoke about a sense of world community, a connection to others that supports our concepts of justice and caring. Can one believe in these concepts without religion? Yes, of course. But for these folks, the foundations that supported their beliefs and actions were religious ones. These are the babies I don't want thrown out with the bathwater. To keep the discussion relevant to this list, we might talk about lesser known people who are doing environmental work in the context of their religion. The most impressive example of this for me is Thomas Berry, a Catholic priest who presented reasons for environmentally responsible action within a religious context. Movements like Deep Ecology borrow heavily from Buddhism and have distinctly spiritual aspects. These are babies too. On a more local scale, I can point to church's or religious groups who are running homeless shelters, food pantries, or river or beach clean-ups. I commend such efforts rather than condemn them because they are based on religious beliefs. Finally, to clarify my statement about sounding arrogant and pedantic, you wrote in your last posting that science is anyway the only tool which will give answers to holy suppositions. I think from your comments earlier in the posting that you agree that science isn't providing a window to ultimate truth,
Re: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon
Christian, I assume your arguments here are intended to promote science, or at least to present why science should be promoted and to the exclusion of religion. However, I think that your characterization of science, in addition to being somewhat misleading, does more to hurt that cause than to help it. First, let me point out where I agree with you. You mention that the list of lies stated by religions is too long to enumerate and you point to just a few random examples: flat Earth, the heretical nature, of medical sciences, the Evil inside divorced or even pregnant women, possession and exorcism, etc. I would characterize these examples, which I agree just scratch the surface, as representative of a long list of stupid ideas presented by religious folks rather than religious doctrines. This is perhaps a semantic distinction, but it points to where I feel you are missing the usefulness of religion or spirituality. I could point to a long list of bad scientific ideas too. Here's one just for fun: Craniometry, the scientific study of the human skull, as a tool for measuring intelligence. Using cranial capacity data, scientists showed why, objectively speaking, men (with there on average larger skulls) are mentally superior to women. It was also used to show why Europeans were mentally superior to Asians and Africans. My intention is not to see who--scientists or religious folks--have come up with the most stupid ideas historically. Rather, I want to point out that you are focusing on only the negative aspects of religion and spirituality. You might say that scientists no longer take cranial capacity as an indication of intelligence. I would similarly suggest that as far as I know most religious folks are now on board with the idea of a round earth. Of course there are still many scientific ideas that significant proportions of religious folks still resist. I find it immensely frustrating and baffling how many Americans are willing to throw away the findings of evolutionary biology in order to maintain an overly literal interpretation of a passage written in a book thousands of years old. I'm sure you could cite other examples equally as frustrating and baffling to you. I suggest that the problem, with both science and religion, comes when one claims, in the name of either, to have access to some sort of ultimate truth. I think we'd both agree that I read it in the [Insert holy book of choice here]. Therefore, ,no amount of evidence to the contrary will change my view, is not a valid argument. Postmodern philosophy (as well as neuroscience) has shown us that science is not a window into ultimate truth either. Rather, science is a powerful method for making predictive models that help us in countless ways. This makes science great for making statements like, If I do X, then Y will happen and here is the proposed mechanism that allows me to make that prediction. The beliefs of people who disregard scientific findings merely because they contradict a literal interpretation of their holy book are indeed incompatible with science, but this does not make spirituality by definition incompatible with science. Asking Why? in a scientific context is really a question about the proposed model or mechanism for a set of events. Conversely, when someone asks Why? in a religious or spiritual context, it is a question of meaning. Science has nothing do say about meaning? Science can paint a pretty detailed picture about a body's responses to being stabbed in the heart, but it can't tell us such a stabbing is wrong. I think what you would say here (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that this is the area for philosophy, which you accept as having a role alongside science. You might suggest that philosophy is a bit like religion, but without all the crazy stories. Here's the rub: we tend to think in terms of stories. For most people today and through history, stories affect us far more powerfully than philosophical arguments. They use metaphor, as Emily pointed out. You call these metaphors lies. Any metaphor is a lie when taken literally. The Greek myths you mentioned are still taught and reflected upon, not because they are quaint pieces of a time past, but because of the metaphorical truth they still hold. Metaphors can convey complex ideas in succinct and powerful ways. Alasdair MacIntyre famously said, I cannot tell you what I am to do unless I first know of what stories I am a part. We define ethical action within the context of stories. So, while I too rail against misinformation spread by misguided religious folks, I am unwilling to write off the religious and the spiritual as an important part of the human experience. Some may prefer to couch their beliefs in the context of philosophy. That's fine. As a pragmatist, I don't care if someone decides to behave environmentally responsibly (say, by limiting offspring) because they believe in a Kantian universal law regarding the
Re: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon
Merran, It appears that a few clarifications are in order. My arguments came from a purely secular perspective. I'm not saying that everything good in religion comes from god, nor am I saying that one must be religious in order to have a sense of ethics. On the first point, I wasn't really bringing a belief in a god into the conversation at all. One can have a spiritual side without necessarily believing in a god. Rather, I was pointing that religion can serve a positive purpose in one's life and make them more, not less, likely to behave in desirable ways (say, for example, limiting offspring). On the second point, a re-reading of my earlier email will show that I acknowledged that some folks prefer to couch their ethical choices in a philosophical context. My exact words were, That's fine. What does it mean when you say that your ethics are based on your own thinking? In your example, science tells you that overpopulation is hurting the planet. What tells you that hurting the planet is bad? It's not science, because that's a value judgment. Nor does science tell you that women shouldn't be oppressed. Pure logic won't get you there either. At some point, you have to choose some fundamental beliefs. Those choices may be influenced by all sorts of things, including upbringing, social norms, personal reflection, and sometimes a spiritual or religious belief. My point is that if someone else on this list responds by saying that they limit their offspring because they feel that the earth system is a gift from God and they should respect that gift, that's fine too. I think part of our differences here is that both you and Christian seem to be defining all religion or spiritualism in terms of rather narrow-minded religious folks you've been in contact with. I certainly agree that simply quoting a scripture is not a valid argument for a particular policy or action. I guess I would encourage you and Christian not to equate spirituality with close-mindedness. In doing so, you make the same mistake as religious people who feel you could not possibly make an ethical decision without sharing their religious beliefs. Cheers, Richard 2011/12/10 Merran pantscr...@gmail.com Richard, I live in a very religious area and I often hear some of the arguments that you have made. In particular, the idea that all bad things in religion come from man, who is imperfect, and that all good things in religion come from god, who is perfect. Of course, you have to be willing to believe in god in order for this argument to hold water. From a secular viewpoint, it just looks like people are capable of both good and bad. I would also reassert Christian's point: In the case of the mainstream religions, the issues already appear when reading the 'holy' texts themselves. But this confuses me: the idea that a secular person is not capable of thinking murder is wrong without believing in god. I'm not religious. I still have my opinions on what is right or wrong. But I call them ethics rather than morals. And since my ethics are based on my own thinking rather than what I have been told to think, it is easier for me to change my mind based on scientific evidence. If I am presented with evidence that overpopulation is hurting the planet, I consider whether it is wrong or right to have a large family. I don't say, But god wants me to have a large family. If I am in a society that oppresses women, I consider whether this is wrong or right. I don't say, But god tells me women are worth less. If I am in a society in the middle of a religious war, I consider whether it is wrong or right to kill someone. I don't read Thou shalt not kill in my holy scriptures and then think, 'Well, Joshua killed and Moses killed and Lot let his daughters be raped, so it must be okay so kill some people, based on what demographic group they belong to.' I also wanted to point out, in reference to some earlier arguments, that having a large family or believing in god does not make you a fundamentalist or uneducated. I live down the street from an excellent, religious university and I greatly admire many of the scientists associated with this institution. But I believe that, as a secular person, I am capable of the same good that any religious person is capable of. And they are capable of the same evil that I am. Just sayin. Merran 2011/12/10 Richard richar...@gmail.com Christian, I assume your arguments here are intended to promote science, or at least to present why science should be promoted and to the exclusion of religion. However, I think that your characterization of science, in addition to being somewhat misleading, does more to hurt that cause than to help it. First, let me point out where I agree with you. You mention that the list of lies stated by religions is too long to enumerate and you point to just a few random examples: flat Earth, the heretical nature, of
Re: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon
Richard, I live in a very religious area and I often hear some of the arguments that you have made. In particular, the idea that all bad things in religion come from man, who is imperfect, and that all good things in religion come from god, who is perfect. Of course, you have to be willing to believe in god in order for this argument to hold water. From a secular viewpoint, it just looks like people are capable of both good and bad. I would also reassert Christian's point: In the case of the mainstream religions, the issues already appear when reading the 'holy' texts themselves. But this confuses me: the idea that a secular person is not capable of thinking murder is wrong without believing in god. I'm not religious. I still have my opinions on what is right or wrong. But I call them ethics rather than morals. And since my ethics are based on my own thinking rather than what I have been told to think, it is easier for me to change my mind based on scientific evidence. If I am presented with evidence that overpopulation is hurting the planet, I consider whether it is wrong or right to have a large family. I don't say, But god wants me to have a large family. If I am in a society that oppresses women, I consider whether this is wrong or right. I don't say, But god tells me women are worth less. If I am in a society in the middle of a religious war, I consider whether it is wrong or right to kill someone. I don't read Thou shalt not kill in my holy scriptures and then think, 'Well, Joshua killed and Moses killed and Lot let his daughters be raped, so it must be okay so kill some people, based on what demographic group they belong to.' I also wanted to point out, in reference to some earlier arguments, that having a large family or believing in god does not make you a fundamentalist or uneducated. I live down the street from an excellent, religious university and I greatly admire many of the scientists associated with this institution. But I believe that, as a secular person, I am capable of the same good that any religious person is capable of. And they are capable of the same evil that I am. Just sayin. Merran 2011/12/10 Richard richar...@gmail.com Christian, I assume your arguments here are intended to promote science, or at least to present why science should be promoted and to the exclusion of religion. However, I think that your characterization of science, in addition to being somewhat misleading, does more to hurt that cause than to help it. First, let me point out where I agree with you. You mention that the list of lies stated by religions is too long to enumerate and you point to just a few random examples: flat Earth, the heretical nature, of medical sciences, the Evil inside divorced or even pregnant women, possession and exorcism, etc. I would characterize these examples, which I agree just scratch the surface, as representative of a long list of stupid ideas presented by religious folks rather than religious doctrines. This is perhaps a semantic distinction, but it points to where I feel you are missing the usefulness of religion or spirituality. I could point to a long list of bad scientific ideas too. Here's one just for fun: Craniometry, the scientific study of the human skull, as a tool for measuring intelligence. Using cranial capacity data, scientists showed why, objectively speaking, men (with there on average larger skulls) are mentally superior to women. It was also used to show why Europeans were mentally superior to Asians and Africans. My intention is not to see who--scientists or religious folks--have come up with the most stupid ideas historically. Rather, I want to point out that you are focusing on only the negative aspects of religion and spirituality. You might say that scientists no longer take cranial capacity as an indication of intelligence. I would similarly suggest that as far as I know most religious folks are now on board with the idea of a round earth. Of course there are still many scientific ideas that significant proportions of religious folks still resist. I find it immensely frustrating and baffling how many Americans are willing to throw away the findings of evolutionary biology in order to maintain an overly literal interpretation of a passage written in a book thousands of years old. I'm sure you could cite other examples equally as frustrating and baffling to you. I suggest that the problem, with both science and religion, comes when one claims, in the name of either, to have access to some sort of ultimate truth. I think we'd both agree that I read it in the [Insert holy book of choice here]. Therefore, ,no amount of evidence to the contrary will change my view, is not a valid argument. Postmodern philosophy (as well as neuroscience) has shown us that science is not a window into ultimate truth either. Rather, science is a powerful method for making predictive models that
Re: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon
Sarah, I think you can readily attribute the subjugation of women in those countries to the Abrahamic religions that dominate their cultures. It is not necessarily a question of fundamentalism on the part of the populace as it may the fundamentalism of the regime or those who influence those regimes. A 13 year old rape victim in Somalia was stoned to death because under sharia law she had committed adultery...yes, I too am mortified that in 2012 religious edicts dictate whether a woman lives or dies even though she has been a victim and or because of her reproductive or partner choices!! The only way women will find themselves empowered in these parts of the world is when the people of a whole rise up and reject theocracies and religious law. Even then human rights activists must remain vigilant as leaders influenced by Abrahamic religions will continue to reassert that their vision of morality should dictate your rights. This is evidenced most recently by the continuing attempts by by US lawmakers to limit women's access to multitude of reproductive choices. Respectfully, Carolyn On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Sarah Fann sarahlf...@gmail.com wrote: Why is this forum arguing about the influence of Judaic religions on population growth? If the population growth of the earth is going to be impacted it won't be by coaxing popular religions like Catholicism and Christianity to be lessfruitful. Despite the predominance of these religions in countries like the U.S. and Britain, the growth rate in these countries are decreasing and have been steadily for years. Why? Because women in these countries have access to education, healthcare, and birth control. More importantly, women in these countries are empowered to make their own decisions and aren't treated like property. On the other hand, the countries with the highest population growth rates such as Liberia, Burundi, Afghanistan, W. Sahara, E. Timer, Niger, Eritrea, Uganda, DR Congo, and the Palestinian Territories, etc have what sort of women's rights? What do you know, these are the countries where women lack education, are still traded under a dowry system, and have the vast majority of there personal freedoms removed. Some of these countries even put female rape victims to death via stoning - and it's practically 2012! If the human population growth curve is going to be impacted it will be by empowering women in the countries they are treated the worst to have the basic dignity and freedom to make their own healthcare choices, not by convincing a few fundamentalists in developed nations to have less children. Take a look at all the countries with growth rates higher than 2% and then look at how women are treated in that nation. The problem, and solution is clear, and I'm constantly dismayed that it is consistently ignored in population growth conversations like the one on this forum. On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:53 AM, Nathan Brouwer brouw...@gmail.com wrote: As pointed out, many conservative Christians believe the mandate in Genesis to be fruitful and increase in number is a directive to produce as many children as possible. Whenever I have heard this argument put forward, there is usually a science-sounding adjunct like, and you know, the whole population of the earth could fit into the state of Texas, each with a ranch house and a back yard. The logic seems to be that as long as there is space to fit people we should keep populating the earth. (This logic was recently put forward by the father on the popular TV show 19 Kids and Counting. I have also heard this from the influential — and controversial -- pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle). It seems this odd argument of fitting the word's population into Texas or wherever adds a science-like justification to their faith-based values. While its frustrating that this erroneous thinking is invoked I think it indicates some level of appreciation for science, facts, math, even modeling. A potential response could invoke the ecological footprint concept and point out how much land it would take to feed a population of 7 billion living in suburban ranch houses. -- The clearest way into the universe is through a forest wilderness. -- John Muir
Re: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon
You make some good points, Christian, deserving a better response than I'm going to provide right now at 11 p.m. First, the basic problem is not so much overpopulation as it is overconsumption. According to one source I've read, the average U.S. citizen has a consumption footprint as large as 90 Bangladeshis. Second, many religions, including mainstream Protestants, promote or at least tolerate birth control and other limits on procreation. Third, I can teach (and have taught) cosmological, geological and biological evolution in my church's youth and adult education programs. The myths and metaphors of our religious heritage (what you call lies) frequently parallel current science. And they try to answer questions that current science cannot answer, e.g., Why is there something instead of nothing? Why is there life? Why is their human intelligence and cognition? Why are humans altruistic to other humans outside their genetic clan? Why are we here? Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR 97223 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Christian Vincenot Sent: Thursday, 08 December, 2011 18:56 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon Why is this forum arguing about the influence of Judaic religions on population growth? I believe that Nathan answered this question in the very first post. Simply because there is indeed an obvious dogma coming with these religions (and a few other ones) that forbids abortion and/or promotes uncontrolled procreation while spreading flat lies about the carrying capacity of our Earth. This in turn obviously impacts demography. I find the link straightforward and the original question raised in this thread legitimate. If the population growth of the earth is going to be impacted it won't be by coaxing popular religions like Catholicism and Christianity to be lessfruitful. Will it be by acknowledging or even ignoring what these religions preach then? Despite the predominance of these religions in countries like the U.S. and Britain, the growth rate in these countries are decreasing and have been steadily for years. Why? Of course, education and birth control played a role... but the decrease of power of religions also did. Actually the two are linked. Education generally lowers the belief in archaic mysticisms like religions. (Actually, I am pretty sure that the strength of belief in religions could be seen as a metric to measure the level of education of countries.) Also, note that the US or GB are not really examples of extremely religious countries relatively to the rest of the world (although they definitely are compared to other developed countries). On the other hand, the countries with the highest population growth rates such as Liberia, Burundi, Afghanistan, W. Sahara, E. Timer, Niger, Eritrea, Uganda, DR Congo, and the Palestinian Territories, etc have what sort of women's rights? What do you know, (...) With all due respect, most of the countries that you cite are Christian countries (i.e. Liberia, Burundi, DR Congo, Uganda, East Timor), and on top of this, all of them are way more religious than the US or GB. Take a look at all the countries with growth rates higher than 2% and then look at how women are treated in that nation. Take a look at all the countries with growth rates higher than 2%, and then look at how religious they are. You will also be surprised. Again, your argumentation against the importance of religions in this issue does not stand. Take a look at this survey: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3423/3277768007_e06378be14_b.jpg What you are ignoring is the opposition between religion and education. Of course education would and hopefully will solve the issue of overpopulation, but it will do so by explaining the flat lies that religions carry, and which prevent women from enjoying their rights and freedom in terms of birth control (and others). Therefore, you cannot deny the fact that, in many cases (like in the one originally brought up by Nathan), there is a link between religion (especially what you refer to as Judaic religions) and demography. You cannot fight one without fighting the other. Best regards, Christian Vincenot
Re: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon
Dear Warren, First, the basic problem is not so much overpopulation as it is overconsumption. I totally second your point of view. Nevertheless, we sadly have to recognise that the two problems are basically entangled and synergistic. Second, many religions, including mainstream Protestants, promote or at least tolerate birth control and other limits on procreation. Indeed, some of them do, but the fact is that the Christian church on the whole does not. Moreover, most of the religions that tolerate birth control also promote the idea that having a large family is healthy. Finally, religion is a factor of quarrels (not to say wars...), and pushes its members directly or indirectly to overwhelm the other religions through nativity. This is a real problem that can be observed as much in radical Islamic movements, as in mainstream Christianity. For example, even among the US Protestants that you mention, I don't need to tell you that the Quiverfull openly state that it is part of their missionary duty to procreate as much as possible to propagate their beliefs. Third, I can teach (and have taught) cosmological, geological and biological evolution in my church's youth and adult education programs. I disagree quite strongly on this, but I am afraid that this discussion is off-topic anyway. Still, I will summarise my point of view. Religion is based on a process of belief that is TOTALLY antagonistic and incompatible with scientific reasoning and methodology. Our predecessors have learned to the cost of their lives how much religions have been deceiving and incompatible with a methodological scientific approach to the analysis of our world. This has been true since Copernicus and Galileo until nowadays. Therefore, I do not know how one can sincerely teach science and religion at the same time without seeing any internal conflict or contradiction. With all due respect, what would somebody like you have taught a few centuries ago then? That the Earth was flat or not? What do you teach nowadays? Creationism or Darwinism? Also, ultimately, what prevails inside of you: the scientific proof or the religious belief? (Do not get me wrong. Believing inside of oneself that something MAY be true withtout any proof is one acceptable thing I think. We do it as scientists ourselves. On the other hand, what is unacceptable is the formation of lobbying groups from which a real diktat emerges to enforce their groundless suppositions as a truth and which create visions of the world and rules of how to live which shall be applied to everyone. THIS is what the mainstream religions have always been about, and this is also what distinguishes philosophy from religion.) The myths and metaphors of our religious heritage (what you call lies) frequently parallel current science. With all due respect, what I call lies ARE lies and not metaphors. The list of all the facts that have been openly stated and ENFORCED by religions and which proved to be blatantly false would be too long to enumerate (just a few random examples: flat Earth, the heretical nature of medical sciences, the Evil inside divorced or even pregnant women, possession and exorcism, etc). Let's not have such a short-term memory... Also, this dual nature of the religious teachings - once metaphoric, once strictly unequivocal and direct - is in my opinion an ultimate way of fooling people. Sure, this was told and enforced stricto sensu by our church during centuries, but actually people were misunderstanding the metaphoric nature of the holy statements at that time. Sincerely... And they try to answer questions that current science cannot answer, e.g., Why is there something instead of nothing? Why is there life? Why is their human intelligence and cognition? Why are humans altruistic to other humans outside their genetic clan? Why are we here? The problems are the methodology for hypothesis creation and what is done with this so-called truth afterwards. First, proofing these hypothesises can only be done by science. If you can propose any religious methodology for proofing any of the groundless suggestions that can be made based on the theological approach, I would be glad to discuss it. As a consequence, religions do not generate knowledge and never will. Second, philosophy can help develop theories for subjects that science is unable to tackle due to their nature. Actually, some questions that you mention are typical philosophical questions. No religion is needed for this. Third, religion would in no way bring any satisfying answer to these problems. Actually, it has never done so. You mention about the origin of life... if we were still believing the Catholic church, we would still be thinking that life was created by an omnipotent omniscient god in six days. Catholic theology has never challenged this point of view (and AFAIK it still defends it). The only reason why we progressed on this is thanks to Cartesian reasoning. I am sure that you will
Re: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon
Dear Christian, My response is more about the confusion between the terms religion cosmological, rather than the original thread on overpopulation/over consumption. I think you misunderstood the 3rd point that Warren made regarding teaching ...cosmological, geological and biological evolution in my church's youth and adult education programs. Your response to this teaching used the term religion when the term was COSMOLOGICAL. These are not the same. Cosmological, geological biological origins are often mirrors of one another and are complimentary processes. These are not to be confused with religion - which is a construct of man that is not only used to attempt to give meaning to life, but also to control mankind. I am a scientist that strongly believes there are too few that contemplate our science in the cosmological context. If the fact that Warren is teaching about these complimentary processes in a church educational program is the source of trouble, I will simply ask this: ! Are we to ignore an opportunity to educate others simply because the venue is a church? If a church is open to this line of education, I see that as a good thing. I do agree with you that the scientific method is a wonderful tool -not your words, but the take-home of your message. Instead of using the scientific method to shoot holes into religious theology, why are we not using it to find the similar patterns represented in the mathematical nature of cosmology, biology geology in conjunction with the corresponding patterns/validations in our mythologies ancient civilizations (lumping all religions here)? I agree with Warren on this. I think it is time to reconcile science spirituality, which is ultimately how we are going to answer the biggest question posted, Why are we here? Very interesting dialog. Sorry if this took things a bit off the main topic. Marnie E. Rout, Ph.D. Affiliate Research Faculty The University of Montana Division of Biological Sciences 32 Campus Dr Missoula, MT 59870 marnie.r...@mso.umt.edu From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] on behalf of Christian Vincenot [vince...@bre.soc.i.kyoto-u.ac.jp] Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 2:03 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon Dear Warren, First, the basic problem is not so much overpopulation as it is overconsumption. I totally second your point of view. Nevertheless, we sadly have to recognise that the two problems are basically entangled and synergistic. Second, many religions, including mainstream Protestants, promote or at least tolerate birth control and other limits on procreation. Indeed, some of them do, but the fact is that the Christian church on the whole does not. Moreover, most of the religions that tolerate birth control also promote the idea that having a large family is healthy. Finally, religion is a factor of quarrels (not to say wars...), and pushes its members directly or indirectly to overwhelm the other religions through nativity. This is a real problem that can be observed as much in radical Islamic movements, as in mainstream Christianity. For example, even among the US Protestants that you mention, I don't need to tell you that the Quiverfull openly state that it is part of their missionary duty to procreate as much as possible to propagate their beliefs. Third, I can teach (and have taught) cosmological, geological and biological evolution in my church's youth and adult education programs. I disagree quite strongly on this, but I am afraid that this discussion is off-topic anyway. Still, I will summarise my point of view. Religion is based on a process of belief that is TOTALLY antagonistic and incompatible with scientific reasoning and methodology. Our predecessors have learned to the cost of their lives how much religions have been deceiving and incompatible with a methodological scientific approach to the analysis of our world. This has been true since Copernicus and Galileo until nowadays. Therefore, I do not know how one can sincerely teach science and religion at the same time without seeing any internal conflict or contradiction. With all due respect, what would somebody like you have taught a few centuries ago then? That the Earth was flat or not? What do you teach nowadays? Creationism or Darwinism? Also, ultimately, what prevails inside of you: the scientific proof or the religious belief? (Do not get me wrong. Believing inside of oneself that something MAY be true withtout any proof is one acceptable thing I think. We do it as scientists ourselves. On the other hand, what is unacceptable is the formation of lobbying groups from which a real diktat emerges to enforce their groundless suppositions as a truth and which create visions of the world and rules of how to live which shall be applied to everyone. THIS is what the mainstream
Re: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon
In light of the discussion on the phrase be fruitful and multiple, you may enjoy this cartoon. http://lemna.unl.edu/bizaroo-human-population-growth.jpg Chad Brassil Assistant Professor School of Biological Sciences http://www.unl.edu/cbrassil cbrass...@unl.edu 402-419-0076 416 Manter Hall University of Nebraska-Lincoln Lincoln, NE 68588-0118
Re: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon
Dear Marnie, I think you misunderstood the 3rd point that Warren made Ok, I felt that Warren was implicitly defending the usefulness of the Christian religion (he used the word religious heritage) alongside science, as well as the compatibility between the teaching of the two, in his third point. I may have inferred this a bit fast indeed. If this is not the case, then my comments are irrelevant. I am a scientist that strongly believes there are too few that contemplate our science in the cosmological context. I can only agree with the intent. Now it depends what methodology you use to get to this point. If the fact that Warren is teaching about these complimentary processes in a church educational program is the source of trouble Oh definitely not. Such endeavours are utterly positive in my opinion. Again, I probably misunderstood, but I was feeling that Warren was defending the compatibility between the preaching of catholic catechism and the teaching of science. Even if it is desirable to teach science to believers, I believe that it should always remain clear that science and Christian teachings are incompatible. @Warren: I am sorry if I misunderstood your position. Instead of using the scientific method to shoot holes into religious theology, why are we not using it to find the similar patterns represented in the mathematical nature of cosmology, biology geology in conjunction with the corresponding patterns/validations in our mythologies ancient civilizations (lumping all religions here)? I have to disagree here. First, science will always shoot holes into religious beliefs when these are wrong (which has almost always been the case in the last two millennia, as they are groundless). It is precisely the essence of the scientific method to differentiate what is true from what is false. As a consequence, when the scientific method is presented with groundless and false religious ideas, it is its duty and its nature to disprove them (if it can) and to bring to public knowledge the wrongfulness of the ideas. Second, why do you absolutely want to merge two things which are opposite by nature and incompatible (again, I persist, but please show me how to conciliate the process of belief with the scientific method)? I see no logical reason for this, only political (not to say religious) ones. The idea of merging science and what you call mythologies reminds me of Freud's nonsensical scientific myth. I think it is time to reconcile science spirituality, which is ultimately how we are going to answer the biggest question posted, Why are we here? Science and philosophy, certainly. Science and spirituality, I doubt it. Please give me one single example of advancement of our knowledge about the universe or enhancement of the condition of Mankind that has been brought by several millennia of spirituality. Spirituality is not based on anything rational, which is why, like religions, it has always been conflicting with science, and science always won. Please give us any counter-example. As illustration, you talked about cosmology before. The only results in this area have been coming from physical cosmology (the Big-Bang theory), while metaphysical cosmology has never given any result. Again, I agree about the need to reintegrate more Holism in scientific thinking, and to reintroduce philosophical thinking in science teachings, but in no way can I support religions/mythologies/spirituality as anything more than stories to distract the mind. (By the way, you will notice that what were considered as religions thousands of years ago (Greek mythology, Celtic mythology, etc) have remained nowadays only as simple stories studied in literature...) Sincerely, Christian Vincenot On 12/09/2011 11:06 PM, Rout, Marnie wrote: Dear Christian, My response is more about the confusion between the terms religion cosmological, rather than the original thread on overpopulation/over consumption. I think you misunderstood the 3rd point that Warren made regarding teaching ...cosmological, geological and biological evolution in my church's youth and adult education programs. Your response to this teaching used the term religion when the term was COSMOLOGICAL. These are not the same. Cosmological, geological biological origins are often mirrors of one another and are complimentary processes. These are not to be confused with religion - which is a construct of man that is not only used to attempt to give meaning to life, but also to control mankind. I am a scientist that strongly believes there are too few that contemplate our science in the cosmological context. If the fact that Warren is teaching about these complimentary processes in a church educational program is the source of trouble, I will simply ask this: Are we to ignore an opportunity to educate others simply because the venue is a church? If a church is open to this line of education, I see that as a good thing. I do
Re: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon
Dear Emily, I think that when we generalize and start debasing spirituality that corresponds with an organized religion we lessen our arguments by being ignorant to the fact that it is the Religion as an Institution that has become corrupt and dogmatic, not necessarily the individuals. In the case of the mainstream religions, the issues already appear when reading the holy texts themselves. The institutions are only the part of the war machine responsible for adapting and interpreting the metaphors to have the groundless statements of the holy texts survive the embarrassment of being proved wrong by science and common knowledge. The problems are as much the holy texts, as the process of belief, as the institution. All of them are incompatible with the scientific method. It is true that many wars or hostilities have been based on religious conflicts, or carried out in the name of a religion, but it is ridiculous to say that religion is /based/ on being /antagonistic/ to science. Religion and Science were born of the same Philosophical questions, but diverged when the questions began to be asked in different ways. /Why/ does this exist vs /How/ does this exist? First, they are antagonistic for the reasons that I gave in all my previous posts. Feel free to counter all my arguments one by one. Second, it is not because they were born from the same curiosity and tackle the same questions that they are compatible. The way that they propose to study the issues is incompatible. As a consequence, religion and science are antagonistic. To summarise the most obvious antagonism: Religions claim to tell the truth (and refuse to discuss it), the scientific method tries to uncover it (and encourages to challenge its results). Best regards, Christian Vincenot On 12/10/2011 12:20 AM, Emily Bingham wrote: I think that this mass generalization of the use of the words religions and religious are confusing the sentiment of this discussion. On a whole, having spirituality in the form of a religious faith or belief system does not inherently clash with having scientific understanding. I think that when we generalize and start debasing spirituality that corresponds with an organized religion we lessen our arguments by being ignorant to the fact that it is the Religion as an Institution that has become corrupt and dogmatic, not necessarily the individuals. christian says Religion is based on a process of belief that is TOTALLY antagonistic and incompatible with scientific reasoning and methodology It is true that many wars or hostilities have been based on religious conflicts, or carried out in the name of a religion, but it is ridiculous to say that religion is /based/ on being /antagonistic/ to science. Religion and Science were born of the same Philosophical questions, but diverged when the questions began to be asked in different ways. /Why/ does this exist vs /How/ does this exist? etc etc. Religion and Politics as institutions have both become bastardized versions of their model pursuits --I do not believe that even Democracy truly exist in practice-- and anyone in power, whether political or religious, becomes corrupt with their own agendas. On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:03 AM, Christian Vincenot vince...@bre.soc.i.kyoto-u.ac.jp mailto:vince...@bre.soc.i.kyoto-u.ac.jp wrote: Dear Warren, First, the basic problem is not so much overpopulation as it is overconsumption. I totally second your point of view. Nevertheless, we sadly have to recognise that the two problems are basically entangled and synergistic. Second, many religions, including mainstream Protestants, promote or at least tolerate birth control and other limits on procreation. Indeed, some of them do, but the fact is that the Christian church on the whole does not. Moreover, most of the religions that tolerate birth control also promote the idea that having a large family is healthy. Finally, religion is a factor of quarrels (not to say wars...), and pushes its members directly or indirectly to overwhelm the other religions through nativity. This is a real problem that can be observed as much in radical Islamic movements, as in mainstream Christianity. For example, even among the US Protestants that you mention, I don't need to tell you that the Quiverfull openly state that it is part of their missionary duty to procreate as much as possible to propagate their beliefs. Third, I can teach (and have taught) cosmological, geological and biological evolution in my church's youth and adult education programs. I disagree quite strongly on this, but I am afraid that this discussion is off-topic anyway. Still, I will summarise my point of view. Religion is based on a process of belief that is TOTALLY antagonistic and incompatible with scientific reasoning and methodology. Our
Re: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon
I am a very infrequent contributor to the list, but I feel I should add to this discussion. I don't doubt that many Christians and Jews have acknowledged that they have fulfilled the conditions of this particular directive, but the unfortunate truth is that a great deal of them do not seem to have not acknowledged this. Devout Christians, particularly Catholics (as far as I understand), continue to view even simple physical contraception (condoms, etc) as an affront to God, and to treat is as a heinous offense against their faith. Many religious people do indeed seem to consider it their duty and their divine right to produce as many offspring as they are able. This is one of my great complaints against faith as it is practiced today: that the oft-translated, and therefore highly convoluted, words of goat herders from 3000 years in the past continue to be treated as divine guidance and as the absolute directive for how everybody should live their lives. Thanks for your time. Please let me know what you think. -Todd Sigley sigle...@whitman.edu On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Warren W. Aney a...@coho.net wrote: The phrase Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it and rule over the fish of the sea and over the winged creatures in the heavens and over every creature that crawls on the ground is from the Hebrew bible, so it is part of both Jewish and Christian tradition. Many, if not most, conservative, mainstream and progressive Jews and Christians are now acknowledging that we as humans have fulfilled the conditions of this directive (we've filled the earth and subdued it) so now it's time to go on to the next step and be responsible rulers. As Edward O. Wilson (a self-proclaimed agnostic) puts it: Science and religion are the two most powerful forces of society. Together they can save creation. Warren W. Aney Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Nathan Brouwer Sent: Wednesday, 07 December, 2011 00:53 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon As pointed out, many conservative Christians believe the mandate in Genesis to be fruitful and increase in number is a directive to produce as many children as possible. Whenever I have heard this argument put forward, there is usually a science-sounding adjunct like, and you know, the whole population of the earth could fit into the state of Texas, each with a ranch house and a back yard. The logic seems to be that as long as there is space to fit people we should keep populating the earth. (This logic was recently put forward by the father on the popular TV show 19 Kids and Counting. I have also heard this from the influential - and controversial -- pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle). It seems this odd argument of fitting the word's population into Texas or wherever adds a science-like justification to their faith-based values. While its frustrating that this erroneous thinking is invoked I think it indicates some level of appreciation for science, facts, math, even modeling. A potential response could invoke the ecological footprint concept and point out how much land it would take to feed a population of 7 billion living in suburban ranch houses.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon
Why is this forum arguing about the influence of Judaic religions on population growth? If the population growth of the earth is going to be impacted it won't be by coaxing popular religions like Catholicism and Christianity to be lessfruitful. Despite the predominance of these religions in countries like the U.S. and Britain, the growth rate in these countries are decreasing and have been steadily for years. Why? Because women in these countries have access to education, healthcare, and birth control. More importantly, women in these countries are empowered to make their own decisions and aren't treated like property. On the other hand, the countries with the highest population growth rates such as Liberia, Burundi, Afghanistan, W. Sahara, E. Timer, Niger, Eritrea, Uganda, DR Congo, and the Palestinian Territories, etc have what sort of women's rights? What do you know, these are the countries where women lack education, are still traded under a dowry system, and have the vast majority of there personal freedoms removed. Some of these countries even put female rape victims to death via stoning - and it's practically 2012! If the human population growth curve is going to be impacted it will be by empowering women in the countries they are treated the worst to have the basic dignity and freedom to make their own healthcare choices, not by convincing a few fundamentalists in developed nations to have less children. Take a look at all the countries with growth rates higher than 2% and then look at how women are treated in that nation. The problem, and solution is clear, and I'm constantly dismayed that it is consistently ignored in population growth conversations like the one on this forum. On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:53 AM, Nathan Brouwer brouw...@gmail.com wrote: As pointed out, many conservative Christians believe the mandate in Genesis to be fruitful and increase in number is a directive to produce as many children as possible. Whenever I have heard this argument put forward, there is usually a science-sounding adjunct like, and you know, the whole population of the earth could fit into the state of Texas, each with a ranch house and a back yard. The logic seems to be that as long as there is space to fit people we should keep populating the earth. (This logic was recently put forward by the father on the popular TV show 19 Kids and Counting. I have also heard this from the influential — and controversial -- pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle). It seems this odd argument of fitting the word's population into Texas or wherever adds a science-like justification to their faith-based values. While its frustrating that this erroneous thinking is invoked I think it indicates some level of appreciation for science, facts, math, even modeling. A potential response could invoke the ecological footprint concept and point out how much land it would take to feed a population of 7 billion living in suburban ranch houses.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon
Discussions — involving religion or otherwise -- on overpopulation typically focus on the need for people to have fewer children. This is probably the most expedient route but unfortunately very distasteful to religious people and people in traditional cultures. As a Peace Corps volunteer in a West African I knew many educated women who had numerous children — their traditional and religious values of having large families was not completely changed by being educated, having a western-style career, or being relatively affluent. Luckily, population growth rates also slow as the age of first reproduction increases — this creates more space between generations. This is another reason why education reduces population growth rates - people, especially women, defer starting families until after they finish school or begin a career. Additionally they often space births out to facilitate furthering their education, career or business. Improving access to education is a powerful route to decreasing population growth rates that does not need to directly tell people to have fewer babies. On Dec 8, 2011, at 4:26 PM, Sarah Fann wrote: Why is this forum arguing about the influence of Judaic religions on population growth? If the population growth of the earth is going to be impacted it won't be by coaxing popular religions like Catholicism and Christianity to be lessfruitful. Despite the predominance of these religions in countries like the U.S. and Britain, the growth rate in these countries are decreasing and have been steadily for years. Why? Because women in these countries have access to education, healthcare, and birth control. More importantly, women in these countries are empowered to make their own decisions and aren't treated like property. On the other hand, the countries with the highest population growth rates such as Liberia, Burundi, Afghanistan, W. Sahara, E. Timer, Niger, Eritrea, Uganda, DR Congo, and the Palestinian Territories, etc have what sort of women's rights? What do you know, these are the countries where women lack education, are still traded under a dowry system, and have the vast majority of there personal freedoms removed. Some of these countries even put female rape victims to death via stoning - and it's practically 2012! If the human population growth curve is going to be impacted it will be by empowering women in the countries they are treated the worst to have the basic dignity and freedom to make their own healthcare choices, not by convincing a few fundamentalists in developed nations to have less children. Take a look at all the countries with growth rates higher than 2% and then look at how women are treated in that nation. The problem, and solution is clear, and I'm constantly dismayed that it is consistently ignored in population growth conversations like the one on this forum. On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:53 AM, Nathan Brouwer brouw...@gmail.com wrote: As pointed out, many conservative Christians believe the mandate in Genesis to be fruitful and increase in number is a directive to produce as many children as possible. Whenever I have heard this argument put forward, there is usually a science-sounding adjunct like, and you know, the whole population of the earth could fit into the state of Texas, each with a ranch house and a back yard. The logic seems to be that as long as there is space to fit people we should keep populating the earth. (This logic was recently put forward by the father on the popular TV show 19 Kids and Counting. I have also heard this from the influential — and controversial -- pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle). It seems this odd argument of fitting the word's population into Texas or wherever adds a science-like justification to their faith-based values. While its frustrating that this erroneous thinking is invoked I think it indicates some level of appreciation for science, facts, math, even modeling. A potential response could invoke the ecological footprint concept and point out how much land it would take to feed a population of 7 billion living in suburban ranch houses.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon
Good points Sarah and Eva. But, as you know, that doesn't put western, predominantly christian countries off the hook. Over-consumption is our analogy to the threat of population growth. So maybe we should be discussing religion's role in changing those habits? Enjoying the discussion, Peter PhD-student University of Copenhagen -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Eva Johansson Sent: 8. december 2011 09:38 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon This site has elegant illustrations of Sarah's point: http://www.gapminder.org/ On 08/12/11 7:26 AM, Sarah Fann wrote: Why is this forum arguing about the influence of Judaic religions on population growth? If the population growth of the earth is going to be impacted it won't be by coaxing popular religions like Catholicism and Christianity to be lessfruitful. Despite the predominance of these religions in countries like the U.S. and Britain, the growth rate in these countries are decreasing and have been steadily for years. Why? Because women in these countries have access to education, healthcare, and birth control. More importantly, women in these countries are empowered to make their own decisions and aren't treated like property. On the other hand, the countries with the highest population growth rates such as Liberia, Burundi, Afghanistan, W. Sahara, E. Timer, Niger, Eritrea, Uganda, DR Congo, and the Palestinian Territories, etc have what sort of women's rights? What do you know, these are the countries where women lack education, are still traded under a dowry system, and have the vast majority of there personal freedoms removed. Some of these countries even put female rape victims to death via stoning - and it's practically 2012! If the human population growth curve is going to be impacted it will be by empowering women in the countries they are treated the worst to have the basic dignity and freedom to make their own healthcare choices, not by convincing a few fundamentalists in developed nations to have less children. Take a look at all the countries with growth rates higher than 2% and then look at how women are treated in that nation. The problem, and solution is clear, and I'm constantly dismayed that it is consistently ignored in population growth conversations like the one on this forum. On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:53 AM, Nathan Brouwerbrouw...@gmail.com wrote: As pointed out, many conservative Christians believe the mandate in Genesis to be fruitful and increase in number is a directive to produce as many children as possible. Whenever I have heard this argument put forward, there is usually a science-sounding adjunct like, and you know, the whole population of the earth could fit into the state of Texas, each with a ranch house and a back yard. The logic seems to be that as long as there is space to fit people we should keep populating the earth. (This logic was recently put forward by the father on the popular TV show 19 Kids and Counting. I have also heard this from the influential - and controversial -- pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle). It seems this odd argument of fitting the word's population into Texas or wherever adds a science-like justification to their faith-based values. While its frustrating that this erroneous thinking is invoked I think it indicates some level of appreciation for science, facts, math, even modeling. A potential response could invoke the ecological footprint concept and point out how much land it would take to feed a population of 7 billion living in suburban ranch houses. -- Eva Johansson, P.Ag. West Kootenay Plants Ltd. Winlaw, BC wkp.ca ph (250) 226-7309 fax (250) 226-7310
Re: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon
I'm glad the importance of empowering women in facilitating the demographic transition has been brought up in this discussion because it gets lost too often in debates about population growth and neo-Malthusian alarmism. Hans Rosling's videos on gapminder.org - esp. the one about the Bangladesh miracle - illustrate the demographic transition beautifully indeed! And he even shows that it is not overall development or affluence per se, but investment in women's health and empowerment and reduction of child mortality which are more critical, as in the case of Bangladesh to bring about the demographic transition. It constantly surprises me that ecologists who ought to be familiar with life-history theory and evolutionary trade-offs about reproduction so often forget to apply that framework to human reproduction! Or talk to women who bear the burden of reproduction and directly face those trade-offs. That said - let us also not forget that the religious fundamentalists in the US are influential enough to have shaped US foreign policy and aid funding in ways that actively prevent birth control information and means from being made available in some of those very countries listed by Sara Fann as having higher growth rates. So its not merely about convincing a few fundamentalists to have less children - their influence is far greater than their own reproductive output. Consider, for instance, the fact that most presidential candidates of at least one party in the US feel compelled to tout their own reproductive success while introducing themselves at a recent debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLtqCrlu_rUfeature=youtube_gdata_player While the clip is funny as presented by the comedian, one has to wonder about the cultural discourse within which these politicians operate. I don't think leaders of the other party will hesitate to tout their own reproductive success as well if asked about it. Speaking as someone from a country that inspired Paul Ehrlich to sound the alarm about the population bomb in the first place - I cannot imagine any present-day politician in India proudly proclaiming as part of an election campaign that they have 5 or 7 children! Peter adds the other huge elephant in the room: over-consumption! This is where the developed countries, with the US leading the pack, far outstrip the developing ones in terms of global ecological impact. We have to address consumption and the overall ecological footprint - and that is where it becomes especially critical to work on changing attitudes in the US and developed nations, even as we have to tackle the human- esp. women's- rights issues in all countries. What does the religious doctrine of human dominion over the rest of creation have to say about that? How are religious leaders addressing the resource over consumption side of the equation? Are they doing so at all? Madhu __ Dr. Madhusudan Katti Associate Professor, Dept of Biology California State University, Fresno On Dec 8, 2011, at 1:00 PM, Peter Søgaard Jørgensen psjorgen...@bio.ku.dk wrote: Good points Sarah and Eva. But, as you know, that doesn't put western, predominantly christian countries off the hook. Over-consumption is our analogy to the threat of population growth. So maybe we should be discussing religion's role in changing those habits? Enjoying the discussion, Peter PhD-student University of Copenhagen -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Eva Johansson Sent: 8. december 2011 09:38 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon This site has elegant illustrations of Sarah's point: http://www.gapminder.org/ On 08/12/11 7:26 AM, Sarah Fann wrote: Why is this forum arguing about the influence of Judaic religions on population growth? If the population growth of the earth is going to be impacted it won't be by coaxing popular religions like Catholicism and Christianity to be lessfruitful. Despite the predominance of these religions in countries like the U.S. and Britain, the growth rate in these countries are decreasing and have been steadily for years. Why? Because women in these countries have access to education, healthcare, and birth control. More importantly, women in these countries are empowered to make their own decisions and aren't treated like property. On the other hand, the countries with the highest population growth rates such as Liberia, Burundi, Afghanistan, W. Sahara, E. Timer, Niger, Eritrea, Uganda, DR Congo, and the Palestinian Territories, etc have what sort of women's rights? What do you know, these are the countries where women lack education, are still traded under a dowry system, and have the vast majority of there personal freedoms removed. Some of these countries even put female rape victims to
Re: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon
Why is this forum arguing about the influence of Judaic religions on population growth? I believe that Nathan answered this question in the very first post. Simply because there is indeed an obvious dogma coming with these religions (and a few other ones) that forbids abortion and/or promotes uncontrolled procreation while spreading flat lies about the carrying capacity of our Earth. This in turn obviously impacts demography. I find the link straightforward and the original question raised in this thread legitimate. If the population growth of the earth is going to be impacted it won't be by coaxing popular religions like Catholicism and Christianity to be lessfruitful. Will it be by acknowledging or even ignoring what these religions preach then? Despite the predominance of these religions in countries like the U.S. and Britain, the growth rate in these countries are decreasing and have been steadily for years. Why? Of course, education and birth control played a role... but the decrease of power of religions also did. Actually the two are linked. Education generally lowers the belief in archaic mysticisms like religions. (Actually, I am pretty sure that the strength of belief in religions could be seen as a metric to measure the level of education of countries.) Also, note that the US or GB are not really examples of extremely religious countries relatively to the rest of the world (although they definitely are compared to other developed countries). On the other hand, the countries with the highest population growth rates such as Liberia, Burundi, Afghanistan, W. Sahara, E. Timer, Niger, Eritrea, Uganda, DR Congo, and the Palestinian Territories, etc have what sort of women's rights? What do you know, (...) With all due respect, most of the countries that you cite are Christian countries (i.e. Liberia, Burundi, DR Congo, Uganda, East Timor), and on top of this, all of them are way more religious than the US or GB. Take a look at all the countries with growth rates higher than 2% and then look at how women are treated in that nation. Take a look at all the countries with growth rates higher than 2%, and then look at how religious they are. You will also be surprised. Again, your argumentation against the importance of religions in this issue does not stand. Take a look at this survey: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3423/3277768007_e06378be14_b.jpg What you are ignoring is the opposition between religion and education. Of course education would and hopefully will solve the issue of overpopulation, but it will do so by explaining the flat lies that religions carry, and which prevent women from enjoying their rights and freedom in terms of birth control (and others). Therefore, you cannot deny the fact that, in many cases (like in the one originally brought up by Nathan), there is a link between religion (especially what you refer to as Judaic religions) and demography. You cannot fight one without fighting the other. Best regards, Christian Vincenot
[ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon
As pointed out, many conservative Christians believe the mandate in Genesis to be fruitful and increase in number is a directive to produce as many children as possible. Whenever I have heard this argument put forward, there is usually a science-sounding adjunct like, and you know, the whole population of the earth could fit into the state of Texas, each with a ranch house and a back yard. The logic seems to be that as long as there is space to fit people we should keep populating the earth. (This logic was recently put forward by the father on the popular TV show 19 Kids and Counting. I have also heard this from the influential — and controversial -- pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle). It seems this odd argument of fitting the word's population into Texas or wherever adds a science-like justification to their faith-based values. While its frustrating that this erroneous thinking is invoked I think it indicates some level of appreciation for science, facts, math, even modeling. A potential response could invoke the ecological footprint concept and point out how much land it would take to feed a population of 7 billion living in suburban ranch houses.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon
The phrase Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it and rule over the fish of the sea and over the winged creatures in the heavens and over every creature that crawls on the ground is from the Hebrew bible, so it is part of both Jewish and Christian tradition. Many, if not most, conservative, mainstream and progressive Jews and Christians are now acknowledging that we as humans have fulfilled the conditions of this directive (we've filled the earth and subdued it) so now it's time to go on to the next step and be responsible rulers. As Edward O. Wilson (a self-proclaimed agnostic) puts it: Science and religion are the two most powerful forces of society. Together they can save creation. Warren W. Aney Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Nathan Brouwer Sent: Wednesday, 07 December, 2011 00:53 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon As pointed out, many conservative Christians believe the mandate in Genesis to be fruitful and increase in number is a directive to produce as many children as possible. Whenever I have heard this argument put forward, there is usually a science-sounding adjunct like, and you know, the whole population of the earth could fit into the state of Texas, each with a ranch house and a back yard. The logic seems to be that as long as there is space to fit people we should keep populating the earth. (This logic was recently put forward by the father on the popular TV show 19 Kids and Counting. I have also heard this from the influential - and controversial -- pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle). It seems this odd argument of fitting the word's population into Texas or wherever adds a science-like justification to their faith-based values. While its frustrating that this erroneous thinking is invoked I think it indicates some level of appreciation for science, facts, math, even modeling. A potential response could invoke the ecological footprint concept and point out how much land it would take to feed a population of 7 billion living in suburban ranch houses.
