Main Points of The Frank Warzaw Paper

That it is science and technology (and STEM and “blue staters”, etc.), that are responsible for climate change, not religion or the religious (insofar as they are religious.)

That climate change is a problem created by technology. Not by religion, not by “human nature” in some general sense: Created by human attempts to make nature yield to its purposes.

Related There is no basis, within religion, to believe in climate change, just as there is no basis, within science, to believe in God. (A person of ordinary understanding, in order to believe either in God or in Climate Change, must defer to persons of authority. A person of ordinary understanding must trust scientific or spiritual leaders to know.)

Again: Climate change is a technology problem. If religious people (insofar as they are religious) mistakenly view it as a spiritual problem (i.e., God’s Judgment), or as a spiritual problem of the wrong sort, they are really not to be blamed for the consequences of their being mistaken. To be blamed, perhaps, are those who have adopted a technology without understanding or planning for its long-term consequences.

— That there are those enthusiastic about technology and who adapt to it readily and gracefully (whom Warzaw calls blue staters, though this is not be confused with the 20th century U.S. earth term), and those wary of technology and who adapt to it slowly and out of necessity (whom he calls red staters), and this difference comprises part of the political problem when the changing of people’s use of technology becomes a moral (race slavery) or existential (carbon fuels) imperative.

In the current debate it is the “climate deniers” that are tasked with being a problem and rightly so. But it is the lovers of technology — on the one hand, capitalists, and on the other consumers — who have brought us to this dilemma and who may well bring us to the next.

(Who believes in God more, had concluded Frank Warzaw, the person who acts as if god exists but says god doesn’t or the person who acts as if he doesn’t exist but affirms with certainty he does? Why is speech, “testifying”, given privilege over action this way?

Again, who believes in God more, had said Frank Warzaw? The person who, not believing in miracles, takes sensible measures to prevent a foreseeable calamity, or the person who, believing in miracles, takes no such measures, and so lands themselves and their loved ones in a situation that could have been avoided?)

%d bloggers like this: