This may be a tongue-in-cheek post, but the point is worth probing I think.
Some atheists have a tendency to refer to God as the sky fairy. Why I don’t know, because it hardly makes for a constructive debate. However, there may be a touch of jealousy behind the jibe because many atheists have a sky fairy of their own. They call her climate – or maybe that should be Climate? So what is the Climate sky fairy all about?
- She has her clerics in the guise of climate scientists.
- She has her synods such as COP17.
- She has her theology in the guise of climate science.
- She has her holy texts such as IPCC reports.
- She has her apocalyptic predictions.
- She has her threats against the unbeliever.
- She has her lay preachers.
- She has her parables and morality tales.
- She has her sects such as Greenpeace and WWF.
- She has her gurus.
- She has her laws.
- She has her official totems such as wind turbines and the colour green.
- She has her lay totems such as the Toyota Prius and solar panels.
- She has her apostates such as James Lovelock.
- She has her sacrifices such as the poor and elderly.
- She has her acts of atonement – the Toyota Prius again.
- She has her indulgences in carbon offsets.
- She has her tithes such as carbon taxes and solar subsidies.
- She has her TV preachers.
- She has her apologists.
- She has her celebrity worshippers.
- She has her political backers.
- She has her own political parties.
- She has her fingers in big business.
All in all she is a thoroughly modern sky fairy. Climate worship may lack the theological sophistication and moral dimension of our Judeo-Christian traditions, but Climate is a primitive god, her followers raw and unsophisticated in the ways of thinking – especially thinking more than once.
Rational folk should tread carefully, for she is a vengeful god and the ways of reason are not her ways. Green in tooth and claw, we see her power in the swivel-eyed gaze of true believers.
I don’t know of a single anarcho-capitalist who believes in either the Judaeo-Christian stuff or the green nonsense.
Thank god for rationalists and a well-observed and very funny post.
Thank god for rationalists?
Irony.
Obviously.
The only Sky fairy I know of is Bradley Wiggins…who flew round France…
Speaking as an atheist who sometimes uses the phrase “sky fairy” I have to say that I don’t tend to do so in order to provoke a constructive debate, but rather to point out the ludicrous nature of the belief in the divine.
Then again, I also believe that climate change is a load of old guff and am just as opposed to the dogmatic, unquestioning faith in science as a whole as I am in all things religious.
As a Christian I find that a very odd comment in that the use of the word ‘ludicrous’ smacks of contempt rather than respect.
There are very many rational, intelligent people, including scientists who believe in the God of the Bible and that a belief in his creation of the universe by God is intellectually logical and consistent with ‘science’.
To our atheists on here – you may have heard of the following amusing imaginary story – but then you may not.
‘A scientist got into an argument with God. “You’re not the only creator” he declared. “I also can make a man”. So God said, “Let’s see you do it”
The man walked over to some dirt. But God stopped him and said, “Get your own dirt”.
Which raises the question that the Bible answers, namely how did non matter appear out of nothing?
The oldest book in the Bible (Book of Job) speaks of the earth’s free floating in space thousands of years before modern science discovered the fact. “(God) stretches out the north over empty space;He hangs the earth on nothing”
In all honesty, I don’t have any real respect for your views. What I do have is a respect for your right to hold them.
As for the creation of matter from non-matter; it is a big question that, from my relatively limited understanding of it, science has yet to truly answer. Mind you, religion has yet to do so either. The recourse to the idea that “God did it” is, for me, intellectually vacuous. Then again, it would do as I have no faith in God. So I’ll happy concede that I can’t neccessarily explain the origins of matter.
What I can do is explain the origins of God. To use the (odious) modern vernacular, simples: we, humanity, created him.
NTL. Without being pedantic your last comment does not “explain” the origins of God does it? You simply offer a subjective statement or viewpoint.
But purely for the sake of argument if it was possible for us to explain God, then of course he could no longer be God but on a par in some way with humans.
But to get back to the constructive debate that AKH refers to. With varying degrees we are all intelligent beings, capable of rational thought, self conscious & etc, and all possessed with a mind.
That being the case we cannot therefore have been formed by a crude, blind, insensible being.
Our intelligence must come from another intelligence. A great reason to identify that intelligence as God perhaps?
Without being pedantic, it is TNL, not NTL.
Toward the substance of your comment, it is true that I state a personal opinion. But it is an opinion based on the evidence as I see it – namely that there is no evidence to convince me that God exists.
Also, I don’t believe that it follows that because we have intelligence we must have been formed from another intelligence. The theory (and yes, it is a theory) of evolution also explains the growth of human intelligence and related mental and emotional phenomena. Sure, you can make the argument that this in some way leads logically towards the existence of God, but that is nothing more than, well, a subjective viewpoint.
Have to say, like TNL I have no respect for the belief in the supernatural. I’ll defend to the death your right to believe whatever you want to believe, but please, don’t ask me to respect it or even show a veneer of the respect for it, because that is an ask too far.
I know for a fact that religious belief has brought a lot of comfort and dignity to people down the years, and it seems quite pointless and needlessly offensive to bandy around terms like sky fairy.
What I as a libertarian utterly deplore is anybody then seeking to enforce by violence, their beliefs on somebody else, a matter which together with governments/tyrants greed for taxes, lies behind most of the most disgusting and barbaric episodes in human history.
“I know for a fact that religious belief has brought a lot of comfort and dignity to people down the years, and it seems quite pointless and needlessly offensive to bandy around terms like sky fairy.”
Well said – I entirely agree.
I agree – to some extent. It is not my habit, for example, to attack the beliefs of others as a matter of principle. If someone is suffering and they are taking comfort and/or dignity from religion then I would not use the term “sky fairy” to them. Nor would I critique their beliefs. A very recent example of this – a friend of a friend on Facebook had a young daughter who was dying (and now, sadly, has died) of cancer. As my friend and her friend are all Christians (the former is the wife of a vicar), their Facebook feeds were full of promises to pray for the poor child. Did I go in there and attack their beliefs or bady around phrases like “sky fairy”? No, of course not. Rather, I offered my very best wishes, and then – very sadly – my sympathies.
However, in terms of a wider debate about religion, I will use such terms to provoke certain reactions. Just as I will use other terms about other belief systems that some might find offensive. Thus, my quasi-Marxist friend is called by me “Death Camp Beth”, because – even given her noble intentions, that’s where her policies lead. While she hates it, it also makes her think.
Context is crucial here; I would not do anything in the first situation because, in context, it would just be too offensive. However, in general discourse with people who I respect but also disagree, I am not going to censor myself because I can use terms that make them get the hump because of their chosen prejudices.
“Context is crucial here”
It is, and with people you respect you can push your views harder. Which is one reason why you respect them.
I suggest you read today’s “Metro” then about (globally) this June being very warm …..
WRONG AGAIN I’m afraid.
There are two sets of people, one scientists, and the other very much not, but expert statisticians ans with HUGE amounts of money riding on their accurate statistics, who do quite reaonably, concur in what the world’s scientific experts say.
The first mob, the scientists, are the Oceanographers and Marine Biologists, who are really scared about the reality of Climate Change, and the extra energy that a warmer planet means when pumped into weather systems.
The second mob are also concerned about that extra energy in the syatem.
The INSURERS.
These are the “Non-scientists” I mentioned some uneducated idiot who swallows oil-company propaganda last mentioned this subject.
Ye, they get more money if their premiums go up, but they are also aware of the approaching-prohibitive cost of said premiuims.
It is NOT in their long-term interests to cry “wolf”, yet they are doing so.
This, as much as the scientific experts considered opinions, that have led to governments heeding, or starting to heed the warnings.
Next question – why don’t you?
After reading through the incoherent and ungrammatical comment above, I see there are a few obviously illogical points that require correction.
1. Climate is always changing, sometimes with minor fluctuations from the accepted mean, sometimes with more extreme swings. And as with any set of statistics, taking a narrow (or short-term) view will distort the apparent variations.
2. Oceanographers & Marine Biologists are a mixed bunch – some are worried by the interpretations put on their data, some are not. But they gather data – it’s the (politically-motivated?) statisticians from whom the scare stories originate.
3. Insurers base their risk calculations on received data – give them scary predictions and premiums will increase. Obviously that proves nothing about the data.
4. The slur about all those not swallowing whole the scary stories being in the pay of “Big Oil” is pathetic, as a moment’s reseach would demonstrate.
Yes, climate is always changing.
So what?
Even given the differences between the Mediaval warm period, the “Little ice age” and now, the change is too continuous and too fast.
SOMETHING has changed, and mankind’s current activities are the only real remaining suspect.
OK?
So you may agree with the Ocanographers, and then proceed to rubbish the professional interpretations put on that data.
Where’s YOUR expertise in this field, then?
It is not a slur – SOME “big oil” companies (Texaco / Exxon ) are involved in trying to rubbish the science.
Others (Shell / BP) are not …
Then there’s the vile Koch brothers ….
I note that you are not even attempting to question the judgement of the insurers?
Because if you are correct, you are telling Lloyd’s that they are wrong and incompetent.
Fine, now make a case….
As you have, presumably deliberately, ignored &/or distorted my points to fit with your POV, I’m not going to refute what I didn’t say anyway. Please go and educate yourself if you wish to be taken seriously.
Yes Greg, the vile David Koch Foundation giving money to the Heartland Institute for Health Care Research
DaveE.
Greg: I suggest you read today’s “Metro” … Sorry, you lost my interest with the word “Metro”.
Forgot to mention in my earlier comment that if you want a perfect conflation of climate change belief with general theism then you could do worse that taking a look at Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis, which is a perfect replacement of one all powerful but barely understood controlling force (God) with another (Gaia).
…….And Lovelock himself has admitted that he was wrong.
In his earliest work, it was only ever a hypothesis so there was always a strong chance that it would be wrong. That and the fact that it was always palpable nonsense.
… In taking William Golding’s suggestion for the name “Gaia”, since it genersted all the supposed “mystic” overtones … not the work itself.
I SAW YOU PALM THAT CARD.
Actually, if you read Lovelock’s first book on the Gaia hypothesis, a lot of the mysticism comes not just from the use of the term “Gaia” but also from the pseudo-mystical way in which he describes his theoretical, cybernetic ecosystem that self-regulates itself and creates/protects life on earth. It is not difficult to see, in that work, Gaia as a God alternative – whether Lovelock intended that or not.
Agreed. Lovelock is a known-known, I’ve written on him quite a bit and he’s in with Strong and Davidson. Have a look at their church they took over.