Greetings,
Very few Christians today are prepared to say that Environmentalism as a system is inherently hostile to Christianity. But if Environmentalism is inherently hostile to the Christian worldview, then we need to know this and face this reality honestly. And we need the resources necessary to identify this problem and present the Christian alternative. Otherwise, how can Christians be an effective transformative or redemptive force in the lives of our neighbours and in our culture today?
My book, “Environmentalism and the Death of Science: Exposing the Lie of Eco-Religion,” does that in a thorough and effective manner. It looks at some of the science, but primarily it confronts Environmentalism at the level of theology and theological distinctions, and it is the only book I know that does so in a comprehensive manner.
And “Environmentalism and the Death of Science” contrasts Environmentalism with Biblical Christianity at the level of theological particulars, not simply with generalized statements about resting in the confidence of God’s providence. This book looks at the difference between the Biblically consistent conservationist ethic and Environmentalism’s preservationist doctrine. It examines the different concepts of God, demonstrating the real-world significance of believing in the true God of the Bible vs. the Environmentalist gods of nature and the messianic state. These two examples just scratch the surface of the real-world practical theology discussed in “Environmentalism and the Death of Science.” We show the incompatibility of Environmentalism and Christianity and we demonstrate the superior environmental outcomes of a Christian-based worldview.
You can’t beat something with nothing. And this book demonstrates the right way to think and approach environmental concerns rather than simply engaging in a hit-and-run attack on the Environmentalist religion.
Order your copy of “Environmentalism and the Death of Science” today by clicking here to visit our website.
Many people today, including Al Gore and David Suzuki, note how belief in Environmentalism is stronger among young people, and this is supposed to be evidence of progress in enlightenment. Actually, as an article I just read this week notes, it’s evidence of thorough brainwashing in the schools. Many universities and colleges have a mandatory “environmental literacy requirement” and they only teach one side of the controversies. And elementary schools use as many opportunities as possible to drive home an Environmentalist religious message into the hearts and minds of impressionable children.
Religious fundamentalists can choose to believe that the popularity of Environmentalism is based on growth in scientific knowledge, but the evidence tells a very different story. Indoctrination is the name of the game.
That is why it is so important to confront Environmentalism with more than simply scientific data. The science is essential in debate, but the science has to be interpreted and that’s where religious assumptions come into play in such a central way. Many if not most people today hold to Environmentalist convictions as a matter of faith, not because they are well-schooled in the science. To illustrate with one tiny example: the next time you talk to someone who is concerned about rising sea levels with global warming, ask him if his concerns take into consideration the huge ice masses that have already displaced all the water that they will displace because they are floating in water rather than sitting on land.
“What are you talking about?”, will be the response you get from most people. Environmentalist devotion is not about science for most people – it’s about religion and peer pressure. That is why confronting Environmentalism at the level of theology and theological distinctions is so essential, and that’s what “Environmentalism and the Death of Science” does so effectively.
Popular Canadian columnist Lorne Gunter has praised the book: “Tim Bloedow offers a Bible-based, theologically sound response to the latest secular religion – environmentalism. It is timely that he should. Like other citizens of the Western world, an increasing number of Christians have been seduced by the dire warnings over global warming and climate change coming from the environmental movement, the media, the United Nations and much of the scientific community. I believe the scientific basis for the current hysteria to be unsound, and now Tim has shown its spiritual foundations are shaky, too.”
Order your copy of “Environmentalism and the Death of Science” today by clicking here to visit our website.
Many Christians today have adopted an Environmentalist mentality without even realizing it because it is sometimes presented in such a low key and innocuous way. We are drawn in by concern over a legitimate issue such as local problems with soil erosion or sanitation and, before we know it, because the Environmentalist system is the only framework we have for understanding these concerns in a broader context, we also start to accept Environmentalist assumptions at some level without even realizing it.
Take for example this note sent to E. Calvin Beisner, founder of the Cornwall Alliance, and my mentor in this area. Somebody wrote to him: “When 29 miners die in a coal mine, 11 oil rig workers die on a platform, and a whole ecosystem is in imminent peril because of the oil slick, explain how pursuing unlimited fossil fuels is protecting the sanctity of life?”
That probably sounds like a very legitimate concern to many normal people, yet it only does so because we live in an intellectual and moral environment which constantly elevates the level of “environmental” risk in people’s minds, while strongly minimizing any evidence of benefit associated with activities that include environmental risk.
Dr. Beisner responded gently, but firmly to demonstrate the irrationality of treating that death rate as a rationale for reducing dependence on fossil fuel use in light of other real world death rates with activities that are part of the normal course of life and which don’t lead to people calling for the same kind of retreatist response in these other areas. You can read his complete response here. He concludes: “Fewer now die in all mining accidents each year, on average, than in accidents in bathtubs. Shall we campaign to ban bathtubs? But, personal hygiene being important to health, perhaps the number of premature deaths from disease prevented by our use of bathtubs outweighs the number of premature deaths caused – or, to put it more technically, perhaps bathing adds more human life years than tub accidents take away.”
Most people still use a responsible cost-benefit approach to bathtub and shower use. Many people don’t when it comes to environmental concerns because when you have absolutized something in your religious system, then a cost-benefit analysis is not considered an appropriate way to determine how to act. That is one way to tell whether you have been influenced by Environmentalism to the detriment of Biblical Christian thinking in this area.
If you or any friends you know will benefit from “Environmentalism and the Death of Science,” please visit our website to order your copy of this very important book today.
The Table of Contents for the book follows:
Introduction
Chapter 1: The world is resilient, not just fragile
Chapter 2: Who is God?
Chapter 3: Man in the image of God
Chapter 4: What is Pollution?
Chapter 5: The Precautionary Principle
Chapter 6: Economic liberty versus environmentalist state-ism
Chapter 7: Preservation or Conservation?
Conclusion
Appendix 1: Noah’s Flood and Global Warming
Appendix 2: Global Warming? Do the Math
Dr. Beisner says about the book: “A clear, straightforward, well-informed, yet reasonably simple explanation of environmental controversies from a Christian perspective is hard to find. Tim Bloedow’s conveniently short book is just that. Mr. Bloedow brings a keen ability to cut through jargon and hype to his task of helping readers reach defensible conclusions.”
Order your copy of “Environmentalism and the Death of Science” today by clicking here to visit our website. Thank you.
Tim Bloedow
Author, “Environmentalism and the Death of Science”
I have no problem with people arguing against certain beliefs popular amongst environmentalists, such as anthropogenic global warming and peak oil. Free and open debate is important in any society. What I object to is the overreaching claim that environmentalism is anti-Christian or incompatible with Christianity.
Environmentalism, at base, is simply concern for your environment. Your environment is where you live. By that definition everyone should be an environmentalist, even if they disagree on how to be an environmentalist. There are environmentalists who don’t believe in manmade global warming.
It is a mistake to assume that all environmentalists support saving the environment through big government, even if most do. There is a lot that can be done on an individual level. Beyond that, government itself is responsible for a lot of environmental problems.
From a Christian perspective I think it is common sense that God wants us to preserve what he gave us. It is also the height of hubris to think we can improve on God’s original creation, and therefore I think GMOs, for instance, are inherently the product of an anti-Christian worldview.
Hey Tim,
Strange logic from “meurig”. He claims that people should only give creedence to “experts” in a given field of discipline. He says he’s not a expert in the global warming “science”. Therefore,–I guess I just wasted time reading his ignorant tirade.
I guess his Phd is in Wasting People’s Time
Enviromentalists want america reduced to a miserble 3rd wold exitence becuase they hate america and all the tecnicle advancments they hate god and worship the pagan deity GAIA and they believe that child bearing is a offense to gaia they oppose the use of man made agents like pestisides the fact that RACHEAL CARSON lied big time in her book SILENT SPRING and PAUL EHRLICH not only also lied but made some wild predictions that didnt happen and AL GORE is the biggist green liar of them all and a hypotcrit as well
AL GORE is not a scientists just a radical liberal eco-wacko who needs to be stopped and have his undeserved awards taken away
Good work SiteEditor.
Let us not forget that the Environmentalist religion also comes with a whole other basket of goodies…
… Such as anthropomorphisation of animals and plants…
… Such as hatred of Humanity…
… Such as anti-European sentiment (since we started the Industrial Revolution)…
… Such as “Earth Day”…
… Such as a phobia nuclear power (despite the fact that a few kilograms of uranium equals the same amount of energy as several hundred kilograms of coal, several hundred barrels of oil, or several hundred litres of natural gas – with no output into the air or water or soil)…
… Such as the use of entirely electrically-powered road vehicles (even though they are comparitively under-powered and still use the power generated by the power generating station)…
… Such as obsession with wind-power generating stations (even though they are spacially and visually pollutive, unreliable unless there is constant wind, and they cause insomnia to the people who live in their vicinity)…
Let’s see Environmentalists argue with that!
From the opening post:
“To illustrate with one tiny example: the next time you talk to someone who is concerned about rising sea levels with global warming, ask him if his concerns take into consideration the huge ice masses that have already displaced all the water that they will displace because they are floating in water rather than sitting on land.”
LOL! Did you really just write that?? Are you unaware that water is one of the few substances that expands when it solidifies? Are you seriously proposing the idea that when an ice floe melts it ~won’t~ raise the water level?
That’s grade school science FAIL right there Timmy…
http://darryl-cunningham.blogspot.com/2010/12/climate-change.html
In cartoon format so everyone, even christiangovernancers, can understand it!
Cute cartoon. Like evolutionists, you can “prove” just about anything when you abandon real science of observable, repeatable experiments for conjecture about what happened in a theoretical world for which you have not original source material.
Joe, you just proved my point. You said water expands when it solidifies. Exactly. That’s why ice at and below water level displaces more water than the water that made up that ice displaced when it was liquid. So if it melts again, it displaces less, but because of other forces at play, the ice above the water that’s part of that same body of ice, when the whole berg melts, takes up or displaces the same amount of space in the water that was displaced by only the expanded frozen water that was below see level when the water was frozen.
With this point, we are only talking about ice that is suspended in water. Ice on land is a different issue. If you’re going to help out your opponents like this, perhaps you should switch sides…
The reason water expands when it freezes is because of hydrogen bonding (if I recall my first year chemistry correctly) – this means that ice isn’t merely frozen H2O, but contains tiny air pockets too. This causes ice to float.
When it melts it most certainly WILL raise the sea levels.
It strikes me as incredibly shady of you to ignore muerig’s constant questioning regarding the funding of CFACT. You simply refused to take the question seriously. It’s an important question though so I’ll rephrase it slightly:
Forget about specifics (CFACT for instance), would you (tim/siteowner) agree that ~if~ an organization (any organization) was looking into climate change seriously that it would be a HUGE conflict of interest to accept funding from big oil companies? Do you believe it’s irrelevant ~where~ the funds come from or do you see a conflict of interest in my hypothetical case?
I also noticed that you dis’ed the cartoon without saying why. Something about “abandon real science” and “conjecture”… I’d like to know what ~specifically~ you disagree with regarding the cartoon.
Where did they abandon “real science” for instance? Where do you feel the cartoon is wrong?