Question: Does politics shape the evangelical debate on climate change?
Richard Cizik: Because there is a concept, even a biblical concept, called co-belligerency; that you can be a cobelligerent with our erstwhile enemies. For example, even on population control or abortion issues, there are people who oppose us on those issues. And yet it’s possible, you see, to be a co-belligerent with them on something else without compromising our integrity. My . . . my integrity is not compromised because I’ve shown that I am both a pro-lifer opposed to abortion. I even have opposed historically population control movements. And so that doesn’t change the fact that I can at the same time say over here they are right. Look, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. Really. I mean evangelicals can make these distinctions. We’ve done it for decades. For example, on the religious persecution movement for example, we’ve collaborated with those who oppose us on abortion to save babies from being burned in bonfires in Darfur. In other words, we’ve collaborated with people who oppose us on the sanctity of human life, on the definition of marriage to work together to save lives against persecution or genocide. We do that and have done that successfully with eight, nine, 10 major bills before Congress. So we can do this. It’s not impossible. It’s just those who really don’t want to do this that raise that as a bogyman.
Recorded on: 6/25/07
Discuss
George Lindesay on January 16, 2008, 4:10 AM
I think this gentleman is missing the key issue here. That is that science and faith based religion are fundamentally different. One relies on evidence and facts and a consequentialist attitude towards situations. Whilst the latter relies on ancient doctrine and the following of tradition to establish opinion and action.
What Mr. Cizlik is describing is a potential "safety" state evangelicals could live in amidst the tide of this new age of enlightenment and reason. The problem is evangelicals (and indeed the scientific community) do not want to change their ways, indeed it is not possible for them to do so (given the previous distinction). My point is that this tentative state that Mr Cizlik describes is bound to become broken due to the inherent natures of science and religion.
George Lindesay on January 16, 2008, 9:10 AM
I think this gentleman is missing the key issue here. That is that science and faith based religion are fundamentally different. One relies on evidence and facts and a consequentialist attitude towards situations. Whilst the latter relies on ancient doctrine and the following of tradition to establish opinion and action.
What Mr. Cizlik is describing is a potential “safety” state evangelicals could live in amidst the tide of this new age of enlightenment and reason. The problem is evangelicals (and indeed the scientific community) do not want to change their ways, indeed it is not possible for them to do so (given the previous distinction). My point is that this tentative state that Mr Cizlik describes is bound to become broken due to the inherent natures of science and religion.
Musycks on March 11, 2008, 7:21 PM
Really the proposition is fatuous… any 2 humans can get along as long as they have a shared interest in doing so. The question is what environment is cultivated by the religious as opposed to the scientist, in order for people to 'get along'?
One philosophy is tied to a stone age supernatural belief system, mostly closed to inquiry,that depending on it's interpreters, can be benign or destructive. The other tied to a system of evidence and investigation that holds no one idea as not being able to be improved upon on the basis of further testable assertions.
One led us to councils of clerics deciding if women had a 'soul', the other to the stars.
No contest.
Musycks on March 11, 2008, 11:21 PM
Really the proposition is fatuous… any 2 humans can get along as long as they have a shared interest in doing so. The question is what environment is cultivated by the religious as opposed to the scientist, in order for people to ‘get along’?
One philosophy is tied to a stone age supernatural belief system, mostly closed to inquiry,that depending on it’s interpreters, can be benign or destructive. The other tied to a system of evidence and investigation that holds no one idea as not being able to be improved upon on the basis of further testable assertions.
One led us to councils of clerics deciding if women had a ‘soul’, the other to the stars.
No contest.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register