"I was the same age as Saint Greta when I learned about postmodernism and basic theological concepts of Christian apologetics. "
I'm like 4 times her age, and I haven't learned any of that, so I guess you must be a theologian.
==
"I can tell you why environmentalism has to adopt qualities of a modern religion "
And I can tell you that you are spouting bullshit.
==
"I can tell you why objective truth is still important in today's relativistic age"
And I can tell you that you are ignoring scientific truths.
--
"Can Saint Greta do any of that? So far, she hasn't demonstrated ANY knowledge of the above"
Why should she? She talks about science, not religion. Her activism is based on science, while your denial is based on faith, cuz you can't refute the science.
How climate change became a question of faith
Aug 8, 2017 — “Climate science has been very deliberately framed as an alternate religion,” says Dr. Hayhoe, who also directs Texas Tech's Climate Science ...
Debate around climate change frequently hinges on religion, particularly Evangelicalism. To many scientists and scholars, however, the pitting of the two against each other is a smokescreen and an oversimplification.
csmonitor.com
==
The climate-as-a-religion accusation is hardly a new invention. It continues to cycle in and out of political rhetoric. The late sci-fi writer Michael Crichton (Senator James Inhofe’s favorite climate change expert) elevated it in a 2003 speech the Wall Street Journal reprinted on March 15. He declared that “one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism.” Inhofe, who uses the Bible to refute climate change science, repeated these words in 2005 remarks on the Senate floor. He said, “Put simply, man-induced global warming is an article of religious faith.” Countless others have picked it up since then.
Conservatives have long tried to discredit the scientific consensus on climate change by arguing, for instance, that there's a global warming " hiatus" and by attacking climate scientists. But they're increasingly aware that they can’t win a debate in the realm of science. So rather than try to discredit the scientific consensus, they're reframing a discussion about hard data into one of faith—just as they've done in their war on evolution. If climate change is merely a faith—something one choose to " believe" in—then climate change deniers can claim they are the ones motivated by reason.
newrepublic.com |
