re: Why do most conservatives embrace a lack of evidence re: climate change but not religion?

quote:

---

Why require scientific data to support your beliefs re: climate change but require no such data to support your religious beliefs?

---

Again, the technical answer is because one deals with the physical world while the other does not.

Practically, the reason is simply that such double standards are necessary for religion to sustain itself. If all people applied a strictly evidence-based approach to religious belief across the board, religion could not survive. All currently proposed religions violate what we know about the natural world in various ways and none have empirical, reproducible and objective measures by which God reaches people.

So while religion IS inherently different than climate, that isn't the reason most people apply different standards to the topics. In reality its because they were taught religion before they possessed finely tuned powers of critical thinking and religion became a vital part of their existence before they ever had a chance to reject it. Most people aren't presented with politics until they are much more capable of discerning reality from fiction.

quote:

---

Why be skeptical of climate change but not religion? Why require scientific data to support your beliefs re: climate change but require no such data to support your religious beliefs? Do you not see the inconsistency?

---

Apples to oranges, buddy. Demanding empirical/objective evidence for a perceptive phenomena which is at it's essence subjective, would be an irrational enterprise on it's face.

Jesus said that his kingdom "is not of this World". It is of the Spirit. Neither Love nor Beauty can be quantified; but for the subjective effect that they have on an individual. Or a group. Yet they are two of the most powerful forces in the Universe. There are a ton of folk in this world for which neither even exist; and if you tried to present those folk evidence - of your own subjective experience of Love - they would simply find your testimony perplexing. Probably label you a fool or crazy, and deem your knowledge worthless, in the 'real' world. Pretty much what happens on this very forum, by degree.

There are two possibilities...only two. Either the essential basis of Perceived Reality is Conscious Energy at it's core...and if so...we are it's 'children' and co-exist for eternity. Probably evolving into more complex, knowledgeable/powerful forms of life, as we so choose.

If the essence of Perceived Reality is simply the result of an unconscious, non-feeling and by chance interaction of Matter and Energy producing a form of conscious being...then the conscious being is destined to go back to it's (unfeeling) source.

Bottom line. Two individuals can live...and die as well. But the lives of the two can be radically and diametrically opposed in a SUBJECTIVE sense. One individual can choose to validate the Idea of an eternal and loving God as Creative Force...and the other, unfeeling and temporal Nature. Belief of the former would create love in the individual who so chooses/validates/worships Love...while belief/validation of loveless Nature (Natural creation) would result in a sure and hopeless mindset, as one moved to a future of personal termination and non-existence.

Live and learn.