… persuade them to stop being rightwingers[1]
I have a piece in Inside Story arguing that the various efforts to “frame” the evidence on climate change, and the policy implications, in a way that will appeal to those on the political right are all doomed. Whether or not it was historically inevitable, anti-science denialism is now a core component of rightwing tribal identity in both Australia and the US. The only hope for sustained progress on climate policy is a combination of demography and defection that will create a pro-science majority.
With my characteristic optimism, I extract a bright side from all of this. This has three components
(a) The intellectual collapse of the right has already proved politically costly, and these costs will increase over time
(b) The cost of climate stabilization has turned out to be so low that even a delay of 5-10 years won’t render it unmanageable.
(c) The benefits in terms of the possibility of implementing progressive policies such as redistribution away from the 1 per cent will more than offset the extra costs of the delay in dealing with climate change.
I expect lots of commenters here will disagree with one or more of these, so feel free to have your say. Please avoid personal attacks (or me or each other), suggestions that only a stupid person would advance the position you want to criticise and so on.
fn1. Or, in the case of young people, not to start.
John Quiggin 
@J-D
It is not just a flaw. It knocks out the entire underpinnings of evolution which is progressive change from a common simple ancestor toward more and more complex creatures with slow steady transitions over 100s of millions of years.
The other aspect to this, Jack King, is that following the Cambrian life survived and sprang back from 5 mass extinctions. Evolution is far more dynamic than you are attempting to imply.
This is a completely false understanding of evolution
“progressive change from a common simple ancestor toward more and more complex creatures with slow steady transitions over 100s of millions of years”.
Did you get this year’s flu shot, Jack? Old people should get it each year as the genetic code changes very rapidly and continuously.
@Fran Barlow
Sure, because he recanted.
goggle “Virginia Steen-McIntyre”. She headed the expedition.
Here is an interesting quote from Desmond Morris in his book “The Naked Ape”:
“A belief in the validity of the acquisition of knowledge and scientific
understanding of the world we live in…is rapidly becoming the
religion of our time.” p. 148
and
“Evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.” H.S. Lipson; Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, No. 4, May 1980, p.138
and
“Another reason that scientists are so prone to throw the baby out with the bath water is that science itself, as I have suggested, is a religion. ” Peck M. Scott; The New Psychology; p. 238
etc etc etc
@BilB
OMG! The entire discussion is about what was not present in the pre-Cambrian fauna. We are not talking about what happened after. For that look at the Stephan Jay Gould quote I posted who tells us what happened after.
@BilB
You really need to stop embarrassing yourself in public.
@Jack King
You do know that Leakey was a supporter of the theory of evolution right?
@Jack King
This seems to be a fairly comprehensive response to the claims of a scientific cover-up …
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/mom-review.html
@Jack King
This seems to be a fairly comprehensive response to the claims of a scientific cover-up …
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/mom-review.html
@Jack King
It is not correct to say that part of the underpinning of the theory of evolution is that transitions take place over hundreds of millions of years. Different evolutionary transitions take place over different lengths of time.
@Jack King
Those quotes from Morris, Lipson, and Scott are all inaccurate statements.
@J-D@10:16:- drosophila.
Ok … I am satisfied that PrQ has made out his claim that by and large, arguing the science with the right is pointless.
In any matter where the best evidence and modelling suggests policy that conflicts with their cultural predisposition, they will say whatever is necessary in their opinion to hang onto their dogma.
In doing so, they won’t be constrained by the need not to assert things that are in conflict with other claims they are making. This is one reason for rejecting their right to use the term ‘skeptic’ to describe them. Genuine skeptics attempt to bring coherence to their objections.
Really, those opposing the IPCC-led consensus on climate science ought to be seen as a subdivision of ‘truther’ movements, of which there are quite a few in the US. In all theses cases, the insistent truther steps up, in their own mind at least, to speak truth to power, which is invariantly in a vast collusive exercise to silence the truthers.
When they come to sites like this, they will use the well-worn tactics of internet trolls — equivocation, false amalgam, Gish gallop, thread hijack, misdirection, projection, — anything they can to divert attention from the discussion they are trying to disrupt.
I have said enough on this matter at this site, so failing anything novel appearing I am going to leave it to others for the next few weeks. My advice would be for others to do likewise and certainly to have no further engagement with our climate truthers.
@Jack King
Do you realise that science is the process of investigating what we don’t know?
Science is full of small areas where the standard position is, “We don’t know and we’re trying to find out”. That doesn’t invalidate the totality of the knowledge gained in the science involved.
The fact that we don’t know for sure what happened in the first 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 second of the big bang doesn’t stop the universe from expanding.
The fact that we don’t yet have an adequate explanation for the Cambrian Explosion does not disqualify everything else we know about evolution. Neither is it proof that Zeus (or Shiva, or Yahweh or Allah …) rolled up his sleeves and created life on earth.
And the fact that we don’t know 100% of the mechanisms of AGW does not detract from the known facts that humans are putting their very existence at risk by shitting in their nest big-time.
” they will say whatever is necessary in their opinion to hang onto their dogma “. “their dogma”, you say, and they bang on about scientific religion of science, &c., &c., &c.. what you have to do is convince them that effective response to climate change will not result in socialism down the road and you can’t. in my opinion effective response to climate change now will certainly result in socialism by the end of the century. co-operation, planning, mutual aid between nations sustained over decades will transform public expectations & normative values. its over for individualist capitalism once they permit a parallel incompatible paradigm to co-exist in their market. they know this. i don’t think “the left” do. “the left” seems to think it will be familiar free market capitalism now on solar panels & wind farms. it won’t. effective climate change response will result in a world-wide co-operative framework where socialistic values will become normative in the minds of millions while individualist competitive capitalism will atrophy. that’s what i think. “the right” is right to resist it; effective climate change action will sweep them & their historically contingent values away, down the sinkhole of history. -a.v.
@Fran Barlow
“In doing so, they won’t be constrained by the need not to assert things that are in conflict with other claims they are making. ”
Dan Kahan calls this Knowing Disbelief and writes this:
” KD consists in (a) comprehension of and assent to a set of propositions that (b) appear to entail a proposition one professes not to “believe.”
“What is going on in their heads?” (WIGOITH) is the shorthand I’m using to refer to my interest in forming a working understanding (a cogent set of plausible mechanisms that are either supported by existing evidence or admit of empirical testing) for KD.
In that spirit, I formulated a provisional taxonomy consisting of four species of KD:
1. FYATHYRIO (“fuck you & the horse you rode in on”), in which the agent (the subject of KD) merely feigns belief in a proposition she knows is not true for the sake of expressing an attitude, perhaps contempt or hostility to members of an opposing cultural group, the recognition of which actually depends on others recognizing that the agent doesn’t really believe it (“Obama was born in Kenya!”);
2. compartmentalization, in which a belief, or a cluster of beliefs and evaluations (“same-sex relationships enrich my life”), and denial of the same (“homosexuality is a sin”) are both affirmed by the agent, who effortfully cordons them off through behavioral and mental habits that confine their appearance in consciousness to the discrete occasions in which he occupies unintegrated, hostile identities—a form of dissonance avoidance;
3. partitioning, in which knowledge and styles of reasoning appropriate to the use of it are effectively indexed with situational triggers that automatically summon them to consciousness, creating the risk of the agent will “disbelieve” what she “knows” if an occasion for making use of that knowledge is not accompanied by the triggering condition (think of the expert who doesn’t recognize a problem as being of the type that demands her technical or specialized understanding); and
4. dualism, in which the agent simultaneously “rejects” and “accepts” some proposition or set of propositions that admittedly have the same state-of-affairs referent but that constitute distinct mental objects individuated by reference to the uses he makes of them in occupying integrated identities, a task he performs without the experience of either “mistake” or “error” (a signature of the kind of bias distinctive of partitioning) or dissonance (the occasion for compartmentalization).”
He goes on to talk about his discussion with Prajwal Kulkarni, a physicist who writes a blog, “Do I need evolution?”, and who has insights on KD because evolution is another area in which he sees KD.
http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/8/27/whats-to-explain-kulkarni-on-knowing-disbelief.html
@Fran Barlow
“In doing so, they won’t be constrained by the need not to assert things that are in conflict with other claims they are making. ”
Dan Kahan calls this Knowing Disbelief and has developed a taxonomy ways people are able to function quite normally despite their thinking being so irrational.
I have a comment in moderation in which I quoted him but the quote contains a bad word.
http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/8/27/whats-to-explain-kulkarni-on-knowing-disbelief.html
Jack King,
“You are truly naive if you don’t understand the pressure that is put on rogue scientists who stray from the orthodoxy. For example, when anthropologist Louis Leakey supported Hans Reck’s discovery in Tanzania which would have greatly pushed back human origins, it created such an uproar that he recanted. Another example….At the Hieyallco, Mexico dig, a highly sophisticated bi facial stone tool was found in situ, and it dated to 250,000 b.p.”
I recently read an article that archaeologists have found bones in Asia that have been dated longer ago than the thesis of humans leaving Africa. I think in some cases it is simply that there are gaps (lacunae is the fancy word) in what we know about the world. Thw world has not been fully excavated, and some things have decompoosed more thoroughly than others. I spoke to a professor, and he said within the physical scientific disciplines there is a fair bit of variety and debates – but if you are not in the discipline you don’t hear so much about them.
I also think you are correct that scientists face pressure. On the CT thread someone linked to an article about an African American scientist who found a highly used agricultural chemical caused problelms with male sexual development and hermaphroditism in frogs. The company funded his initial research but tried to direct him away from stating his results, so he did the research without the company funding. But the company sent people to follow him around, and put together dossiers on him, and try to undermine his professional credentials. One of the reasons they were able to do so was that he was African American and grew up in I think a lower income area and then went to a good school when he was a bit older and his intelligence was supported, but he really was navigating two cultures, his original African American family, friends and neighbourhood culture, and the White middle class scientist culture. The article said asa professor he had the most multicultural lab, taking other people from diverse cultural backgrounds under his wing, whereas they often would get socially excluded in research institutions otherwise.
On Phyla, I am sorry that my effort was just a cut and paste. But that was the only time I had heard about phyla before. I have found a recent article, and it seems that knowledge about the Cambrian explosion is growing now as more people from different fields study the matter (p. 930). I am quite pleased that even with my dearth of knowledge my guess about species changing quickly due to the geological and climate events and changes was reasonably close to how the development of phyla can be interpreted scientifically. I would like to thank you for introducing me to this interesting topic of phyla. I hope you don’t mind if I cut and paste this interesting article, it would take me too long to paraphrase it and i am quite busy today.
“There is no lack of fossil evidence that several basal metazoan phyla were most probably present in the late Edi- acaran, with calcified clades succeedingly added in the early Cambrian. On the other hand, there is scarcely any unam- biguous evidence for existence of bilaterians in the Edia- caran period (except for Kimberella), although controversial candidates are continuously emerging. In comparison with the Cambrian ecosystems, both abundance and diversity of metazoans in the Ediacaran ecosystems were very limited, indicating that the metazoan-dominated marine ecosystems were not established by this time. Numbers of new classes and new phyla, mostly bilateral lineages, dramatically in- creased in the first three stages of the Cambrian period, with a slight increase thereafter. Therefore, the Cambrian explo- sion is largely abrupt occurrences of bilateral lineages in a short time span during the first 20 Ma of the Cambrian period”
“The first appearances of animal phyla in the fossil record may represent minimal ages of their originations but are not necessarily equivalent to their actual originations. The pres- ence of bilaterial traces and protostome body fossil Kimber- ella in the late Ediacaran suggests that protostomes and deuterostomes diverged at least by 555 Ma, theoretically after the divergences of basal metazoans.”
“It has long been recognized that the Earth’s surface envi- ronments changed drastically in many aspects from the late Neoproterozoic to the Cambrian period, which would have significant impacts on the life evolution during this critical transition. In the meantime, biological activities incessantly altered environments, which in turn affected life evolution.”
“tectonic backdrop, paleo-climatology, quality and composition of sea- water, and oxygenation. These environmental changes are commonly referred to as extrinsic factors for the Cambrian explosion.
It has long been known that the assembly and breakup of a supercontinent significantly affect biodiversity (Valentine and Moores, 1970). Although the assembly of the Gondwana was a polyphase process that was accomplished during the Pan-Africa Orogeny, the Brasilina-Damara Orogeny (630– 520 Ma) and the Kuungan Orogeny (570–530 Ma) are nearly synchronous with the Cambrian explosion”
“Continental collisions at this time led to the trans-Gondwana mountain ranges ex- tending over several thousand kilometers. Intensive conti- nental weathering brought nutrient P and others to the ocean regime, thus led to increase of biomass and organic burial. Finally further oxygenation triggered the evolution (Knoll and Walter, 1992; Brasier and Lindsay, 2001; Squire et al., 2006; Campbell and Allen, 2008; Campbell and Squire, 2010). The problem at present is the lack of geochemical data suggesting a stepwise rise of oxygen level during the Precambrian-Cambrian transition.
The aftermath of Snowball Earth is similar to that of tec- tonics. Again it is nutrient and oxygenation that were linked to evolution. During the end of Snowball Earth, ice melting brought nutrient P from continents to the ocean regimes, and thus led to increase of biomass and organic burial and further oxygenation of atmosphere”
“Two genetic points are crucial for our understanding of the Cambrian explosion: the diversity of animal forms is con- trolled by developmental gene regulatory networks (dGRNs), and the evolution of the body plan rests on changes in the architecture of the GRNs (Davidson and Erwin, 2006; Da- vidson, 2010). Therefore, the composition, organization, function, and evolutionary change of the GRNs are intrinsic factors that govern the development and evolution of meta- zoans (Carroll et al., 2001; Davidson and Erwin, 2006, 2009; Davidson, 2010).”
“Therefore, the last common ancestor of metazoans was strikingly complex in genetic composition. It is likely that the dGRNs was established during origin of animal multi- cellularity, and hence is long before the fossil diversifica- tion of bilaterian lineages in the Early Cambrian. The diver- sity of forms among metazoans rests not entirely on new genes, or even novel regulatory and developmental schemes.”
“Since both molecular clock and fossil evidence suggest that developmental system of bilaterians was in place before the first fossil appearances of animal phyla, the establishment of dGRNs is a prerequisite but not a cause of the Cambrian explosion. Therefore, ecological explanations are becoming popular. Many workers believed that the Cambrian explosion was an ecological phenomenon, and considered that positive ecological feedbacks drove the Cambrian explosion. Howev- er, most ecological explanations confound consequences with causes, and thus are immersed in the “chicken-and-egg” problem, e.g., the ecological effects of zooplankton, biotur- bation, predation, and so on, which are briefly discussed below.”
” In a word, the Cambrian explosion happened when environmental changes crossed critical thresholds, and hence led to the initial formation of the metazoan-dominated ma- rine ecosystem through a series of knock-on ecological processes, i.e., the “ecological snowball” effect.”
Click to access art%253A10.1007%252Fs11430-013-4751-x.pdf
@Julie Thomas
Thanks Julie … I hadn’t come across that.
@Fran Barlow
Referring to “truthers”, “sceptics” and denialists, I call them medieval faith-reasoners. Their mental constructs still conform to a pre-modern and specifically early Middle Ages world view. Religion, faith, magic and superstition still hold sway over the thoughts of such people. The Renaissance and the scientific and humanist revolutions have largely passed them by.
St Francis was a medieval faith reasoner and I am sure he was more sustainable in his living than any of us
“Praised be You my Lord with all Your creatures,
especially Sir Brother Sun,
Who is the day through whom You give us light.
And he is beautiful and radiant with great splendour,
Of You Most High, he bears the likeness.
Praised be You, my Lord, through Sister Moon and the stars,
In the heavens you have made them bright, precious and fair.
Praised be You, my Lord, through Brothers Wind and Air,
And fair and stormy, all weather’s moods,
by which You cherish all that You have made.
Praised be You my Lord through Sister Water,
So useful, humble, precious and pure.
Praised be You my Lord through Brother Fire,
through whom You light the night and he is beautiful and playful and robust and strong.
Praised be You my Lord through our Sister,
Mother Earth
who sustains and governs us,
producing varied fruits with coloured flowers and herbs.”
@Fran Barlow
You may want to try this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hueyatlaco
Here is a particularly pregnant quote:
“Steen-McIntyre claims that some of the original research team were harassed, viewed as incompetent, or saw their careers hampered due to their involvement in such a controversial and anomalous investigation”
@J-D
Let’s keep it simple and just look at the Morris quote. Are you saying by “inaccurate statements” that His opinion is wrong, or that I made it up?
To the original subject – Media are surely a huge factor in giving the politicised rejection of mainstream science legitimacy. Journalists failing to take those who reject the science to task – treating it as a legitimate position even when the journalist thinks they are wrong – is a huge factor . Dick Warburton stating that he did not dispute climate change, just CO2 as a major cause – (just one of the most recent examples of the “climate is always changing” line that regularly appears in the comments of Abbott and his selectees and I see as a deniable expression of climate science denial) ought to have automatically prompted some serious questioning. This is outright rejection of mainstream climate science, yet it’s significance is passed over. It could easily lead directly to questions about the extent of their reading/research on the subject, which sources they trust and distrust, their trust in Australian scientific institutions and expertise and extent of consultation with them, their possession – or not – of any actual evidence of bias or fraud. And questions about their willingness to slander reputations of professional scientists.
The quality of Australian journalism is abysmal, their partisan practices are allowed to flourish and their role as directors and manipulators of public opinion go largely unchallenged. Like leading politicians who actively want people like Jack and Phoenix to hold and maintain the views on climate that they do, our media provides enough validation to assure them that their rejection of mainstream climate science is valid and scientifically credible.
@ZM
Normally I don’t respond to long cut and pastes. But your article looked interesting, so I plowed ahead. It’s conclusion sums up the current thinking:
“In a word, the Cambrian explosion happened when environmental changes crossed critical thresholds, and hence led to the initial formation of the metazoan-dominated ma- rine ecosystem through a series of knock-on ecological processes, i.e., the “ecological snowball” effect.”
In reality the “snowball earth” thesis states that this very hostile environment somehow morphed soft-bodied worm-like eukaryotics into metazoans in a tiny sliver of time. It just doesn’t pass the sniff test. We are not just talking speciation here. We are dealing with phyla! 35 completely different body plans. In reality, a phylum is little more than a statement of taxonomical ignorance since there is no relationship to other phyla in which there is supposed to be a common ancestor.
@Ken Fabian
Not familiar with the press in Australia, but in the US it almost universally leans to the left. Either way my specific opinions are based on my personal knowledge of using modeling to establish long-term policy. Models are a very imperfect tool. Even Prof Quiggin points out the paucity of efficacy in econometric modeling. Now move to a global eco system and try and model it. Take my advise…don’t bet the house on it.
Jack King It is rather annoying when the press are blamed when “they don’t agree with my point of view” Rather like blaming the referee/umpires in a game of sport! There are plenty of outlets to put across your point of view(now more than ever!) and if people don’t agree with your opinion so be it ! Try harder!
@Ken Fabian
Speaking of the “press”, I’ll repeat a comment I posted in the ‘free press’ thread:
MEAA had its Qld love-in last night, the Clarion Awards.
Every good kiddy gets a prize. The “journalist” of the year went to a News Corp hack.
They included what I thought to be a startlingly frank admission in the blurb about the article that won her the prize:
The obvious implication being that it is unusual for a piece of “journalism” these days to come without a PR machine origin, an agenda and/or a product to sell. Of course everyone knows that, but I was surprised they’re openly admitting it now. They usually go to great lengths to deny that reality.
@Jack King
I am saying that his opinion is wrong, in that it is not the case that a belief in the validity of the acquisition of knowledge and scientific understanding of the world we live in is rapidly becoming the religion of our time.
@Jack King
To the left of what? Genghis Khan (aka Faux News)?
@Jack King
You show clear evidence of misunderstanding on at least two points: an ‘ecological snowball’ effect is not the same thing as the ‘snowball earth’ thesis; worms, and worm-like creatures, are metazoans. If your understanding is that faulty, it seems safer to accept no assertion you make until it is independently corroborated.
Jack King,
” Take my advise…don’t bet the house on it.”
The earth is our home. The current extent of human transformations of the natural world is betting/risking our house -the earth and it’s life forms and their ecology – for some sort of idea of material progress which is in a lot of cases just extravagance and demandingness.
You said you are a deist – but what deity do you follow with your idea that humans can do as they please, right or wrong, hell or highweather, without troubling themselves to consider their trespasses on others?
Of course the climate and the ecology are very complex and difficult – but scientists who make learning about it their lives work are telling us that several of our activities are causing climate change and biodiversity loss and extinctions. And that following current trajectories of consumption of natural resources will make it worse.
The fundamental principle of carbon release altering the climate was first theorised in the 19th c and we have only increased our emissions since then.
You might be willing to risk your life for having a high material standard of living – if so, if you were not harming others, that would be your business. But against the evidence given by people who are more studied than you ate in the matter, your asking to risk the homes and lives of so many more. It is very unfair. If you think the scientists who study phyla are not completely right in their understandings about the origins of phyla that does not really affect anyone else. I myself am hopelessly at sea trying to understand what physicists mean by spacetime. But I don’t have an effect on time or spacetime, and you don’t have an effect on the origins of phyla.
Not supporting endeavours to reduce GHG emissions however will – to the best of current scientific knowledge – gravely negatively affect other people and creatures.
@chrisl
Agreed…but it was Mr. Fabian who was complaining about the press. Time to pay attention rather than shoot from the hip.
@J-D
Fine…but Morris is a world class scientist (zoologist) who in observing his profession has evolved (no pun intended) certain opinions…..along with a laundry list of others.
@zoot
Fox News is far from “Fair and Balanced”. But its ratings are through the roof, so I don’t see them changing. CNNs ratings have fallen steadily over the past few years, and they have tried to move more to the center from the left. But as far as the rest of the TV media (CBS, NBC, ABC, etc) they are clearly left. And the print media (which is slowly dying a death of a
thousand cuts) is heavily left.
@Jack King
How so Jack? What definition are you using for “right” and “left”?
I would note in passing that in Australia the only truly “left” (as in aligned with socialist aspirations) media are not part of the mainstream at all. Their audiences are infinitesimally small.
Anybody else noticed we’re dealing with a Gish Gallop?
@J-D
OK genius…if the author of the article when he used the term “ecological snowball” was NOT referring to the “Snowball Earth” thesis, what the hell was he referring to???
What am I supposed to be writing a doctorial thesis here??? What a nitpick….how about a “complex metazoan”…like Anomalocaris, Wiwaxia, Hallucigeia, Opabinia, etc etc etc You do realize the difference between a simple annelid and these creatures, correct? (no you don’t)
@zoot
Then you state:
I would say that you answered your own question.
@ZM
You don’t have a clear understanding of what a deist is. They simply believe in a creator based on the design of nature. He/She doesn’t have a name (unlike the bible god Jehovah), and He/She seems to have lost interest and has gone into exile…perhaps forever. That’s it. No church, no clergy, no pontifus maximus dictating doctrine. And I don’t personally believe we should just do as we please. I am very much an environmentalist. I am wholly in favor of governmental structures which protect the environment. In the US we have a reasonably pristine country because of those structures. On the local level virtually every town and city has recyling programs most of which are mandatory. I actually have a bit of a fetish about recycling…getting a rush when putting a certain item in the right container.
@Jack King
No Jack, I was asking for your definition.
If you honestly believe CBS, NBC, ABC, etc are aligned with socialist aspirations you are clearly delusional and therefore incapable of rational disputation.
@Fran Barlow
OMG! Of course! There is not an professional anthropologist on the planet who would not defend it. Of course, other than going back to Australopithicus (cerca 3 million ybp), their evolutionary knowledge is very spotty.
@zoot
Zoot…are you from the US? If so have you watched MSNBC, the cable offshoot of NBC and under the same news department?
I have to agree with Fran @13, and concur with JulyT’s linked Dan Kahan’s thinking particularly on KD dualism with regard cognitions and closed mindedness. I go even further to suggest that some cognitive predispositions have a developmental neurological foundation. There are those who argue that Libertarianism is the ideological and cognitive expression of suppressed empathy in some individuals. Right wing conservatism is most likely a milder version of that syndrome. For a full appreciation of these connections see the work of Robert Sapolsky and his surprising conclusions in “Stress:Portrait of a Killer” documentary.
Jack is beyond reason by the looks of it, but since he professes to be a deist and since we’re talking about the fate of the planet:
There was a flood. The small town was in danger. The authorities warned residents to evacuate but the believer refused to go. As the waters rose they came around in a 4WD and told him to jump on – but he refused.
He said: my deity will not let me drown and I will not be dictated to by you.
The next day the waters had risen higher. The SES came in a boat and tried to get him to leave but he again refused.
The next day he was on the roof as the waters continued to rise but when a helicopter tried to get him he told them that he had faith in his deity and refused to go.
The next day he drowned. He went to his afterlife and demanded to know why his deity had not saved him from drowning.
The deity replied: You idiot, I sent a 4WD a boat and a helicopter.
So Jack, maybe your deity is trying to tell you something….?
Good parable, Megan. Does “Jack” get bitch slapped by his deity somewhere in this story?
@Megan
Deist do not believe that the Creator is some kind of puppet master pulling strings. He has completely stepped out of the picture. He doesn’t communicate with us…directly or indirectly. Basically we’re on our own. Science is a big part of our belief system. Why? Because if he created everything, he created the laws that bind it together. The more we learn about the world/universe, and the laws that control it, the more we learn about Him/Her. P.S. Nice story….I’ve heard it before.
@BilB
Why do you put quotes around “Jack”? And why do you and many others use cryptic pseudo names? Prof Quiggin also asked me if I was using my real name. I’m wondering what is going on. Should I, for some reason, be hiding my identity? Should there be some shame for making posts on this public blog?
In Megan’s parable ” ” = fn x where x contains anyman. Also being a parable the flood is symbolic for Climate Change, the 4wd represents solar energy, the boat represents wind and wave energy, and the helicopter represents the IPCC and Global Action on Climate Change.
….there endeth the lesson.
Jack King,
You have a very confusing deity who created everything, decided not to intervene at all – except he realised he would like to create some phyla and came back for an odd spot of intervention.
I have never heard of such an outlandish sort of deity 😉