Am I God?
When I insist that I am right in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, it can only mean that I AM GOD.
I see three ways to know something: direct experience, divine revelation, and investigation. If you claim to “just know” something that means that you have come by this knowledge without any of the three ways stated above. How is this possible? The only being who can just know something is God, and therefore, you are God.
Consider an issue like climate change. I have no desire to debate this topic, but what I am fascinated by is the person with no scientific background who knows “for fact” that it is a hoax. 99% of the scientists who study the phenomenon are sure that it is a real thing. The few scientists who deny it are not experts in the field. One climate change denier studied the data and concluded that the planet is warming. But you know better.
But how do you know? You haven’t “experienced” whether it is true or not. You aren’t claiming divine revelation (are you?). You surely haven’t studied the matter. So, how do you know?
Are you God?
Furthermore, when confronted with these facts, a common conclusion seems to be that there is a vast conspiracy to perpetuate this “lie.” Consider for a moment the old adage that the simplest answer is usually true. The simplest answer is that the planet is warming, but some find it easier to believe that thousands of people are colluding to to bring about a hoax that can have no possible benefits.
Again, what you don’t realize is that the only way you can know of this conspiracy is to be God. Because you know that climate change is a hoax, the only logical explanation for its traction is a conspiracy. You now “know” that it is a conspiracy without any evidence or direct knowledge.
Now, I am assuming that if I have described you, you don’t believe that you are God. But isn’t that really what you’re saying? How can you be so certain of your positions when you haven’t studied it, and you have no evidence to the contrary?
This piece is not about climate change, I can think of a number of issues that people around me claim to “just know,” but that they really know nothing about. I am more concerned about how we approach such issues.
I only see two right ways to be in this world: be God, or be humble.
What do you really know? Are you sure? So much damage is done by people who were so sure they were in the right. Be sure or be humble. In fact, be sure and be humble.
Some wisdom to consider:
Some wisdom to consider:
“Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths” Proverbs 3:5-6
“There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.” Proverbs 14:12
It's all about the evidence for why you believe what you believe. For instance to further the example of climate change, this link below is an example of the misinformation out there, which I've propagated myself until I researched it further to find it was a hoax.
ReplyDeleteSpiritual miscommunication is even worse since the majority of people site feelings to believe what they believe instead of evidence. Why is it when it comes to spiritual matters, otherwise rational people will throw out rational thought to trust in their feelings as to what is true?
Why is this important, Allen's blog brings up a big problem with society today. People tend to make themselves out to be God siting rules they've set up to guide their moral behavior which they can't follow themselves and when broken, act as God to change the rules so they fit within the confines of their new set of rules.
2+2=4 for everyone, just as there are objective moral truths that we all must conform.
https://i1.wp.com/scienceblogs.com/gregladen/files/2013/06/Facebook_meme_Global_Cooling_11.gif?resize=509%2C340
Allen,
ReplyDeleteI'm guessing you are trying to be provocative here.
You assert that this post is not about global warming, yet you hold it up as the gold standard of certainty. It cannot be doubted. Anyone who questions it is a "denier". I have always considered you a thoughtful dude, but this reeks of dogmatic, name-calling.
Let's examine your own curious, epistemological method stated above: "I see three ways to know something: direct experience, divine revelation, and investigation."
So in order for us to "Know" something (which is a whole discipline unto itself) according to you we must have divine revelation, be God, have direct experience or investigation. I fail to see how the last two are mutually exclusive, but we'll leave that for now.
For most of your post you argue that no kind of direct experience or investigation could ever lead to the possibility of one doubting the reality of Global Warming/Climate Change.
So let's tease out the conclusions of your argument. If you don't believe in Global warming, you must "know" this because you have divine revelation or are God.
Is this what you really intended to say?
I will give you the benefit of the doubt here. Perhaps you ran into an ignoramus who just "knew" that global warming is a hoax and that motivated you to write this post.
Interested in your reply.
Tim
Are you suggesting that there is only one "ignaramus" who just "knows" that global warming is a hoax? Of the people you know, who are on the anti-climate change side, has any of them studied it? Done any research?
ReplyDeleteI purposely tried not to take a stand, because that's not the point. There are other examples of people who act as though they know better than the entire scientific community. I could have made this about vaccines.
I am not going to claim to "know" that climate change is real, because I haven't studied it. I am willing to defer to the scientific community on this one. This is not a place where belief is a valid choice. If you "believe" it is a hoax, you are challenging all of the scientists who have studied it. How is that different from "knowing" it is a hoax?
You are now going to live as thought it is false, and presumably support policies and candidates who also"believe" it is false. If you're going to support them, hadn't better "know" you are right.
Side notes: I realize there is a lot more to epistemology, but you can only do so much in this space. Sure, investigation and direct experience are in the same vein, but not the same.
I never argue that "no kind of direct experience or investigation could ever lead to the possibility of one doubting the reality of Global Warming/Climate Change." It's just not there in my argument.
I'm not even really concerned with those who have doubts. I am only concerned with those who have concluded that it is a hoax without any investigation, direct knowledge, or divine revelation.
What I'm really concerned about is that we can't discuss these things, or pursue rational policies when too many people just decide that they just don't want to believe it and any evidence that contradicts their beliefs is proof of a conspiracy.
I did not suggest that there is only one ignoramus that knows climate change is a hoax. I was merely guessing at the motivation for your global warming rant , which is uncharacteristic of you.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me you do want to talk about global warming, and you are absolutely perplexed that someone is not convinced when apparently you already have been. If you want yo discuss the topic in an honest and robust manner, lets debate the points and stay on topic without your fallacious appeals to authority and straw man arguments. There are educated opinions other than the ones you believe to be the authority and last word on this issue.
If you don't want to debate climate change, use a different example to illustrate the point you are trying to make. To me it is still unclear what you are trying to accomplish with your argument.
Best
Tim
If you have some materials on climate change you want to point me to, I'll take a look.
ReplyDeleteHowever, to remain true to the idea of this blog; it is "Show Me Where I Am Wrong." You say that I made "fallacious appeals to authority." I don't see it. Show where I did that. Similarly, You say I use a "straw man argument." Where is the straw man? I don't see it.
What your responses really make me think about is whether I have enough control over language to do this blog. I wonder am I really "ranting?" Am I using such emotional language as to garner angry responses? It is always difficult to know how your writing is going to be read. Does it come off with the same tone in which it was written?
There is a humility necessary in the writing, reading, and responding process. As someone wiser than me once said, "Even if I am 10% responsible for the conflict, I am 100% responsible for my 10%." I am always willing to look at where I might be wrong, or misspoke. I guess that's the point of all of this. We need to approach the discussion with humility, asking how can I do better? So, show me the logical fallacies, so that I can correct them, or avoid them in the future.
As Christians our opinion and belief on any subject whether its political, environmental, religious or otherwise must be formed by scripture. Some call this a Biblical World View. The process of developing one's Biblical world view starts with a deep understanding of Scripture, starting in Genesis and working our way all the way through Revelation. Instead of looking at a subject and forming our opinion, and THEN seeing if it lines up with our faith - we must use the pages of scripture to find objective truth on the matter (not our own subjective mind or opinion). Once we have the objective truth of God's Word, we then can come up with our statement or our stance on the subject. For myself, I am completely not worried about climate change, it is not an issue for me. Why? The bible clearly states in Revelation 21:1 that this world will be destroyed and God says he will make a new Earth. If we truly believe this as Christians, and we also believe that we are in the end times, why then would we spend a bunch of time, effort or money attempting to save something that God has clearly told us he is going to destroy anyway? Reading the last pages of the whole story tells me that this world will make it all the way up until God decides to destroy it - so nothing I do here on this Earth will ever change that fact. It is a prophecy that I believe in. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating we trash this place, I do believe we should be good stewards of what God has given us. But we need to be aware that God has warned us in Romans 1:25 that many will "exchange the truth about God for a lie, and worship the things God created rather than the Creator". Let's be honest, many atheistic & secular humanistic/progressive type people now focus much of their attention solely on being "green", or protecting animals, or nature - but most of them could care less about God or having a relationship with him. They have exchanged the Truth - for a lie, and worship Creation. This is my Biblical view on this subject. I'm not God, but when the Bible speaks on a subject - clearly, it is completely OK as believers to state those things with a certain conviction.
ReplyDeleteI think there is a little more interplay between the issues and the scriptures. I'm not sure that one can come to an "objective truth" in a vacuum. I don't know that studying scripture without an eye to the issues will work.
ReplyDeleteI think (and maybe this is what you're saying) is that one can discern principles from scripture that can then be applied to particular topics. I don't think there is an answer to climate change specifically in the Bible. But I do think there is away of understanding the world that can then be applied to particular topics.
Here's what I mean by the interplay: One might think that because we have this promise of a new heaven and a new Earth, we shouldn't care about what happens to this planet now. It's all going to burn, right? But intuitively, I know that doesn't seem quite right. On principal, such a wasteful lifestyle doesn't seem, on the whole, scriptural. So, my interaction with real life suggests that my interpretation of scripture is missing something. In turn, that leads me to the book of Genesis in which Adam is clearly given stewardship over the planet. Now, I must consider how to reconcile my role as steward with the idea that this planet will be renewed. For me, it seems consistent with scripture to understand that, while the planet may be "renewed"someday, I shouldn't be contributing to its demise. After all, I have to live here until the renewal, do I really want to live in a cesspool?
This underlies my general take in climate change. To me, it is nitpicking whether or to what degree we are causing the planet to warm. It is a no-brainer that spewing tons of pollutants into the air is bad stewardship and as a responsible steward, I should do what I can to keep it clean. Because of that, the controversy seems a bit overblown.