While the PZ Myers Affair dominates discussion at Scienceblogs this weekend, it's important to remind ourselves that there is an invisible middle of perspectives from scientists, atheists and the religious that emphasizes shared common values rather than the continual drum beat of conflict. Indeed, there's much more to the relationship between science and religion than just the loud voices of Myers and the Expelled producers.
From a front page story at the Arizona Republic yesterday headlined "Churches Preaching Green."
Parishioners are being asked to embrace environmentalism in a variety of ways. Members of Community Christian Church in Tempe are encouraged to go outside and reflect on Scripture surrounded by nature. Churches in Arizona's Episcopal Diocese have formed green teams that conduct energy audits of individual churches. At First United Methodist Church in Tempe, the most recent adult Bible-study topic was "Taking Care of God's Earth."
Jeff Rossini, 24, of Phoenix, bikes 16 miles to and from work four days a week as a way of practicing his faith.
"One person not driving isn't going to save the world," he said. "But it boils down to me believing that I should be a good steward of the Earth to the best of my abilities and that I am to protect God's creation."
- Log in to post comments
In the short term, this is great.
In the long term, we're digging our grave. When you make an alliance with the irrational, you have to realize that the fact that they're currently on your side is simply dumb luck. So next time something important comes around and the theists stubbornly believe the wrong thing instead of the right thing, you're stuck with it. Better to attack the problem at its roots and reform American as a nation of rational thinkers.
It's refreshing to see a church following a rational, science based approached.
Sure beats praying and having faith that god will save them.
Oh great - so now that the Mormons and Roman Catholics have spent the last several decades trying to overpopulate the planet and destroy South America and its resources - NOW they want to look out for the environment.
Phooey - all they want is bigger families and SUV's
"God will provide"
It's all total BS.
Matt, I find it fascinating that you posted these two together. While there has been a deluge of commentary on your other post, this story has only a few comments. Strange. Or is it that we are more interested in ranting about the "looming theocracy" (see waldteufel's response) and clinging to stereotypes (see Chris P's comment above), than responding to the report that Christians are demonstrating concern for the environment? They're even doing this at church... on Easter.
No doubt, these hostile attitudes makes a partnership with Christian environmentalists even more difficult. Will forging an "us versus them" dichotomy really help? Certainly not.
Allison,
As someone who is currently involved in a church's efforts around environmental education and stewardship, I think you are right about the difficulties of forging partnerships when the dialogue is focused on how wrong other people's beliefs are, rather than on the possible shared priority of say, saving a wetland area.
Religious environmental groups are succeeding because they use strong religious language to make their case. Those who are too uncomfortable with that language to keep from criticizing it, will not be able to work directly with religious groups.
Very interesting, Anna. You mention the rhetoric used by religious groups that tends to alienate the critics I mentioned. The word "stewardship" is a perfect example.
So, should Christians change their rhetoric? or should their opponents simply accept the rhetoric and move on to, as you said, save a wetland? are there possible rhetorical frames that could be accessible to members of both camps?
Let's say you have a group of duck hunters and a group of non-hunting environmentalists considering joining forces to save a local wetland. Can the members work together on a common goal without falling apart over the issue of hunting? I think it depends on the individual members of the groups. I think it's a similar issue with religious and non-religious groups working together, or groups with different political thrusts. If agreeing on rhetoric and enforcing notions of intellectual purity is more important to some of the members, then a cooperative venture will probably fail.
I think it depends on an atmosphere of mutual respect, an assumption of goodwill, and courtesy, more than a specific formula. Or, as my grandmother might have said, "Do you want to keep arguing that you're right, or do you want to actually get something done?" Some people would rather sit there and be right, and too bad for the wetlands. But I'd like to think that most people would take a deep breath and work together with someone with whom they disagreed on other issues, in order to save a wetland. I hope I'm right.