How do you not turn God into CO2?

by Brad Nelson   3/1/14

No, perish the thought. This is not an attack on God or religion. Neither all the minds of the Marxists or all the resources of science can put one dent into explaining how existence itself happened, let alone consciousness. That there is some Creative organizing force over and above mere nature is self-evident. Frankly, if one is an atheist, one is either not very thoughtful or is very angry at life for having been dealt a bad hand (as one perceives it). Or both.

Nay, I have not come here to bury God but to simply wonder how one keeps the god concept above the level of CO2. Let me explain.

A friend in the shellfish industry told me just yesterday about a theory he heard espoused as to why that season’s harvest was either up or down (probably down). The theory consisted of a “bubbles-coming-up-from-the-bottom-of-the-mud” theory that had extra amounts of CO2 as the cause. How this effected shellfish one way or another, I didn’t get into those details. But once the magic word, “CO2,” was given, it was all that I needed to know anyway.

And this theorist who was espousing this theory to my friend was a bona fide environmental wacko. That is, he was an EPA official. Clearly CO2 has become some kind of powerful talisman for the Left. It can account for anything. Warming. Cooling. Shrinking glaciers. Expanding glaciers. Heavy snow. Light sow. Lots of hurricanes. Very few hurricanes. Sometimes feeling like a nut. Sometimes you don’t.

It is my understanding that in the Christian conception of God, mankind has free will. This is in contrast to, say, the primitive religion of Islam wherein anything that happens in life is simply cast off as “god’s will.” That kind of god is no better than a blind force of nature (and such blind forces surely do exist, such as gravity).

Christians certainly attempt to put themselves in harmony with the Divine will. But I don’t believe it’s their practice to say that everything that happens — good or bad — is “God’s will.” Surely if some schmuck rapes some woman, it was the schmuck’s will that was to blame. Humans are moral agents who can make choices, not blind forces of nature.

But in the world of the environmental wacko (which, really, includes nearly everyone on the Left), CO2 is like that primitive Islamic belief. If anything — whether good or bad (but usually bad) — happens in the world (aka “in the environment”) then these new wacko priests of soda pop fizz find a way to declare it being caused by CO2. It’s reminiscent of the old Roman custom of taking the auspices by reading chicken livers. You can read whatever you want into them. But a chicken liver remains just a chicken liver.

And I’m pretty sure that there are people who relate to God as environmental wackos do to soda pop fizz, blaming him for everything and taking contingency, free will, or just plain bad luck out of the equation. That is, they take god out of the realm of an active conscious agent and make a superstition of it all (a la CO2). And given the typical hardships that a human life faces, it is certainly tempting to turn God from a being into a magical agent, treating the Creator little better than soda pop fizz, the CO2 of the paganistic religion of Leftism and environmental wackos.

So how does one resist this pull? Well, the truth is, many haven’t. As Dennis Prager notes, most of Judaism, and a good portion of Christianity, has been given over to the Left where people, for all intents and purposes, worship Leftism (diversity, multiculturalism, viewing man as a material being not a moral being — aka “social justice”, emphasizing a Communist like “equality” rather than duties and responsibilities, emphasizing a narcissistic self-fulfillment instead of self-sacrifice, etc.).

It’s just something to think about if you don’t believe in worshipping paganism but might be doing so through the back door, so to speak. And given the pagan-like superstition of CO2 as practiced by the Left — which is so obviously dishonest, deluded, and self-destructive — it’s a reminder to perhaps raise our own game and not fall into the same paganistic traps of dumb and dumber.
__________________________________________________
Have a blog post you want to share? Click here. • (1406 views)

Share
Brad Nelson

About Brad Nelson

I like books, nature, politics, old movies, Ronald Reagan (you get sort of a three-fer with that one), and the founding ideals of this country. We are the Shining City on the Hill — or ought to be. However, our land has been poisoned by Utopian aspirations and feel-good bromides. Both have replaced wisdom and facts.
This entry was posted in Blog Post. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to How do you not turn God into CO2?

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    A requirement for a valid scientific theory is the concept of falsifiability. When it can’t be refuted by further observations/experiments, then it’s not science at all, but some sort of dogma. This is the case with “scientific” creationism, and it’s also the case with “climate change”. Carbon dioxide is simply an aspect of that. I could believe that at least one concern (increasing acidification of the seas) might have a point — if it weren’t being made by the same people who’ve been shilling for “climate change” or “global warming” for decades.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      God, at least, has existence going for him. Being itself must be accounted for. And no mere scientific explanation can ever suffice to account for it. Ever.

      CO2, on the other hand, is used to try to explain what science could otherwise explain, or at least — because of chaos theory and other components — could speak of in terms of probability (sort of like the weather man on TV).

      It’s not the facts that are in dispute regarding CO2. This is purely a religious/sociological/psychological/political phenomenon.

      CO2 is a stand-in for the idea that government (at least Leftist governments) knows best and that industry is not to be trusted. There are a lot of people outside of government who have been propagandized into this belief system.

      But surely it goes deeper than that. One can understand the busy-body, control-freak, self-aggrandizing politicians wanting to raise the prestige of government-as-all-seeing-oracle. Many scientists have hitched a ride with this as well (because of the money) and prostituted themselves and science.

      All of this is rather mundane, if serious. What I find particularly interesting are the rank-and-file people (the useful idiots) who have made this paradigm their own. Why do people trust government? Not only that, why do they want to?

      One can understand the pull of traditional religion. Life is hard. And life is wondrously grand. And life just is. All three of these poles draw man toward the metaphysics and philosophy of religion, even when he is not simply trying to ratify his own inclinations by steeping them in the prestige of god (thus one of the Ten Commandments about not taking the Lord’s name — his prestige, actually — in vain.)

      But it’s hard for me to understand environmental wackos, even accounting for the anti-religious, anti-business propaganda so many have been exposed to. I have seen so many otherwise hard-working and decent people reflexively go for this CO2 stuff. Yes, Leftism is a sort of secular religion. I understand that. And perhaps that is the only explanation needed.

      But Christians question aspects of their faith all the time. What is it about the environmental-wackos that make them such uber religious fundamentalists? There is some sort of weird psychological phenomenon going on with this. It’s partly narcissism, surely, because these people have come to identify themselves as the smartest, kindness, and most compassionate people on the planet. And what bigger focus could there be for these narcissist than to care not just about, say, some blind guy down the street but the whole friggin’ planet?

      And I’ve see what happens (I saw it once with a niece of mine) when that narcissistic conceit is even pricked slightly. They get very upset.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        One could say that that’s the difference between a religion and a cult. The former can accept some questioning at times, whereas the latter requires rigidly dogmatic adherence to orthodoxy.

  2. steve lancaster says:

    Of course the global warming crowd is a cult. Challenge their thin assumptions and the response will always be personal attacks, red faced outrage directed at you and your family. Many who disagree with man-made global warming do not wish the ordeal by fire and just walk away, the way you would from a mad dog.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Some do walk away. I’m for getting in their face and calling a spade a spade. I won’t be an appeaser of Karl Marx.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I sometimes refer to them as the Branch Albertians, which links them (by way of the Branch Davidians, an offshoot of the Seventh-Day Adventists) to the Millerites, an apocalyptic cult that reminds me of eco-zealots (or perhaps vice versa would be more accurate).

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Branch Albertians. LOL. The lineage of the name might be a stretch for everyday conversation. But we can make it our own nonetheless.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          It’s not even much of a stretch. The Millerites were famous for having actually picked a date for the Apocalypse, and its failure to happen was called the Great Disappointment. One branch came up with a new date, but it wasn’t long before they realized the problem with specific dates. The connection to Paul Ehrlich should be obvious, hence my occasional reference to eco-Millerites. And since the Millerites led to the Seventh-Day-Adventists, and the Branch Davidians are an offshoot of the latter, Branch Albertians (who follow the Goracle, of course) are simply an obvious (to me) reference. I also call them Gorescammers.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            It seems there have always been and probably always will be some type of Millennialists. Of course, Revelations has been used by all sorts to predict the end, but the newfangled AGW types make a particularly interesting study.

            Branch Albertians, ha. I can just see them prancing about in cassocks made of unbleached fibers colored by using organic recycled green dye.

  3. steve lancaster says:

    There is only one way to deal with a mad dog, but it is bound to get you talked about.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *