Hitchens on AGW

[Arkayik]

In "God is not Great", Hitchens contends (if I read it correctly) that it is immoral for a person who doesn't really believe in in God, to decide to prostrate to god just on the off-chance there is going to be an post-mortem-judgment day... A so-called "hedge-on-Heaven" approach to religiosity.

Then, I saw this youtube vid in which Hitchens appears to use the "hedging" logic with regard to how to approach the question of whether Global warming is human-caused or not....

Don't get hung up on the question of whether GW is caused by man, lets set that aside b/c there are other threads already regarding that debate.

How is it (if at all) Immoral to hedge on heaven, but not immoral to hedge on the question of the possibility of human-causation of GW...?

Thanks in advance for your insights.

Cheers.

 

[a_unique_person]

For one their is a plausible amount of evidence by expert scientists, with copious documentation, for the other there is purely opinion based on faith.

On the basis that there is a plausible reason for AGW, a risk management approach is justified.

 

[latent aaaack]

Also, with religion, no amount of converting prevents you from still being damned by every other religion. With AGW, "converting," ie greatly reducing emissions, genuinely leaves civilization safer from a potential grave threat, and without necessarily aggravating other threats (giant world-cooling space mirrors aside).

What is similar to religious belief is the choice of the AGW threat above all others as the dominant environmental threat to human civilization. There are many and it makes no sense for just one to be obsessed over.

 

[Arkayik]

For one their is a plausible amount of evidence by expert scientists, with copious documentation, for the other there is purely opinion based on faith.

On the basis that there is a plausible reason for AGW, a risk management approach is justified.

With due respect, I think you are side-stepping the question based on your assumption that the case for religion is unproven.

Indeed, I don't think the case for or against religion is necessarily a relevant question within this context. If religion could be summarily dismissed, then the morality of a non-believer taking sides would be irrelevant, and it would become an issue of mental health....

 

[Arkayik]

What is similar to religious belief is the choice of the AGW threat above all others as the dominant environmental threat to human civilization. There are many and it makes no sense for just one to be obsessed over.

Interesting point. Hadn't thought of it like that.

 

[mhaze]

In "God is not Great", Hitchens contends (if I read it correctly) that it is immoral for a person who doesn't really believe in in God, to decide to prostrate to god just on the off-chance there is going to be an post-mortem-judgment day... A so-called "hedge-on-Heaven" approach to religiosity.

Then, I saw this youtube vid in which Hitchens appears to use the "hedging" logic with regard to how to approach the question of whether Global warming is human-caused or not....

Don't get hung up on the question of whether GW is caused by man, lets set that aside b/c there are other threads already regarding that debate.

How is it (if at all) Immoral to hedge on heaven, but not immoral to hedge on the question of the possibility of human-causation of GW...?

Thanks in advance for your insights.

Cheers.

Speculation may be fun, but it'd be quite interesting to engage Hitchins on this dichotomy.

 

[Arkayik]

Speculation may be fun, but it'd be quite interesting to engage Hitchins on this dichotomy.

Well, it would be interesting, just not sure if there is a real question in there, or if I've latched onto a strawman... I've been accused of being logic impaired, at least once or twice before...


Cheers.

 

[a_unique_person]

With due respect, I think you are side-stepping the question based on your assumption that the case for religion is unproven.

Occams razor. So much work has gone into proving religion, with so little to show for it. The standard fallback position is always 'faith'. As an atheist, I have a very easy position to defend, and no need for 'faith'.

 

[Arkayik]

Occams razor. So much work has gone into proving religion, with so little to show for it. The standard fallback position is always 'faith'. As an atheist, I have a very easy position to defend, and no need for 'faith'.

Fair enough, but I'm not asking you to prove or disprove the case for religion. So too, the question of whether GW has human causation, is not relevant. I'm not dissing Hitchens for either stance, I'm simply asking if there is a real dichotomy.

As I see it, the same principle should apply for both situations, however, that is the question. Am I missing something...?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

As I see it, the same principle should apply for both situations, however, that is the question. Am I missing something...?

What exactly do you think the "principle" is here?

If said it was immoral to drive a car over a person would you expect me to apply the same principle and consider it immoral to drive over a bridge?

The "hedging on religion" you describe involves implied lying. The "hedging on anthropogenic global warming" does not.

 

[a_unique_person]

Fair enough, but I'm not asking you to prove or disprove the case for religion. So too, the question of whether GW has human causation, is not relevant. I'm not dissing Hitchens for either stance, I'm simply asking if there is a real dichotomy.

As I see it, the same principle should apply for both situations, however, that is the question. Am I missing something...?

For one there is evidence, for the other not. That is what scepticism, as I understand it, is all about.

 

[Arkayik]

What exactly do you think the "principle" is here?

If said it was immoral to drive a car over a person would you expect me to apply the same principle and consider it immoral to drive over a bridge?

If you'll recall, in the vid he qualifies his stance to imply he doesn't think there is anything which can be done about GW. Therefore, I would postulate the "principle" in both cases is doing something contrary to the evidence.

The "hedging on religion" you describe involves implied lying. The "hedging on anthropogenic global warming" does not.

Unless one claims there is nothing to be done about GW anyways... In that case, doing something is obviously ignoring the individual's assumptions...

In any case, you and unique have helped with my "thinking out loud". You tagged the pretty obvious (which I'd missed) distinction with regard to evidence.

Also, I'd have to honestly say I'm not 100% sure what "principle" I'm trying to pin down. I think it seemed somehow intellectually dishonest to say we should do something about GW even if we don't know if it is AGW, and then qualify it with saying "but I don't really know whether anything we do will change it"...

In Hitch's defence (not that he appears to need any help from me), it didn't appear that he wanted to be dragged into that topic of conversation anyways, so I'm sure he could just have been saying non-controversial things to move onto a different topic...

Cheers.

 

[Arkayik]

For one there is evidence, for the other not. That is what scepticism, as I understand it, is all about.

I'd have to agree with you about that, good point.

 

[Dragoonster]

Not sure I understand the logic at work. Being on dialup it generally takes awhile to watch video, so I'm just going by the reactions here.

How is it (if at all) Immoral to hedge on heaven, but not immoral to hedge on the question of the possibility of human-causation of GW...?

I've always viewed the death-bed confessions, hedging one's bets, as personally wrong (not immoral, but I have a strange morality). Mainly for two reasons: first, just declaring I believed in something wouldn't, or rather shouldn't, give me access to whatever bounty a true believer has.

second, even though I think religion is silly and ridiculous, I have respect for adherents, in that they have honest belief. If I were to quickly adopt their religion while not believing in it, it would be disrespectful to them. More imo than disagreement or even mocking their logic is disrespectful. This reason of mine is faulty in many ways and I need to explore it more, but I'm giving it in the interests of full disclosure.

Comparing it to GW, I don't think GW is a god, so my perception of "it"s reaction to whatever I think is moot. If it exists, it wouldn't/shouldn't care if anyone believed or didn't believe, it would just be a natural phenomenon. Becuase of this, I can hedge my bets and adopt a lifestyle that deals with GW even if I don't believe in it, because I don't expect my efforts to go for naught (if it exists) due to not truly believing in it. There's no conscious evaluator of belief-vs-nonbelief for GW that would affect whether belief is enough to gain access to benefits, unlike religion.

I have a feeling I'm totally missing the logic of the comparison though.

 

[Mycroft]

In "God is not Great", Hitchens contends (if I read it correctly) that it is immoral for a person who doesn't really believe in in God, to decide to prostrate to god just on the off-chance there is going to be an post-mortem-judgment day... A so-called "hedge-on-Heaven" approach to religiosity.

Then, I saw this youtube vid in which Hitchens appears to use the "hedging" logic with regard to how to approach the question of whether Global warming is human-caused or not....

Don't get hung up on the question of whether GW is caused by man, lets set that aside b/c there are other threads already regarding that debate.

How is it (if at all) Immoral to hedge on heaven, but not immoral to hedge on the question of the possibility of human-causation of GW...?

Thanks in advance for your insights.

Cheers.

I think the primary difference is that there is evidence to support man mad global warming, while there really isn't any evidence to support God. Hypothetically, if one were to decide to prostrate themselves before God just to hedge their bets, they would also risk irking Shiva, or any number of alternative dieties who are just as likely to exist as God is.

Pursuing alternative sources of energy, on the other hand, has many benefits in addition to relieving hypothetical man made global warming.

I just don't see the contradiction that you do.

 

[kallsop]

Now just suppose the world had taken drastic measures to combat the coming ice age that was predicted in the 1970's. Would that have been wise "risk management"? Is there an argument that we did take evasive measures (e.g. particulate pollution reduction) that was so effective we are now going to all burn up in 7 years, 9 months and 9 days? (Al Gore's Doomsday Clock).

Will Global Warming remediation plunge us into the ice age we were confidently predicting before Al Gore predicted global warming, or will it magically set the earths temperature to some unspecified optimum equilibrium? Inquiring minds need to know.

 

[CoolSceptic]

First caveat on responding to this: I haven't read Hitchens book (I'm already an atheist, I don't need further persuading ) but the video was interesting.

The question asked was aggressively posed. It implied that he doubted global warming and questioned how a "great" mind could think that way. The question is horrendously framed and loaded with prejudicial language (no true scotsman).

Hitchens immediate response is, of course, to point out he isn't an expert in that field and doesn't really hold a strong position. This shouldn't really be surprising. Hitchens is clearly uneasy both at the accusatory framing of the question and the content - and he does indeed hedge his position.

He essentially presents the precautionary principle, but the precautionary principle is (in essence) a false dichotomy anyway; no action is zero-sum, decarbonising the world economy will have negative consequences, and there are an enormous range of approaches (from adaptation to carbon capture) which have different consequences. The precautionary principle does not allow us to determine which approach is most sensible. Only a detailed cost-benefit analysis can do this.

However, Hitchens response minimises the risk of becoming smeared by activist groups in a debate he probably does not want to get involved in. On that basis, his answer may not be so much a hedge against global warming, more a hedge against becoming embroiled in a polemic debate.

 

[a_unique_person]

Now just suppose the world had taken drastic measures to combat the coming ice age that was predicted in the 1970's. Would that have been wise "risk management"? Is there an argument that we did take evasive measures (e.g. particulate pollution reduction) that was so effective we are now going to all burn up in 7 years, 9 months and 9 days? (Al Gore's Doomsday Clock).

Will Global Warming remediation plunge us into the ice age we were confidently predicting before Al Gore predicted global warming, or will it magically set the earths temperature to some unspecified optimum equilibrium? Inquiring minds need to know.

There was never any confidence about a coming ice age, it was just one more "what if" that a few scientists raised back then, that the press pounced on, as they often do. There are numerous, similar examples of science being misrepresented. There was never the equivalent of the IPCC created, either, for example.

Al Gore has nothing to do with the science, he is just a public figure who has decided to present the issue more widely than scientists are able to do.

 

[NeilC]

In "God is not Great", Hitchens contends (if I read it correctly) that it is immoral for a person who doesn't really believe in in God, to decide to prostrate to god just on the off-chance there is going to be an post-mortem-judgment day... A so-called "hedge-on-Heaven" approach to religiosity.

How is this immoral in the first place? It just points to someone being not absolutely sure of their beliefs in this matter.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Now just suppose the world had taken drastic measures to combat the coming ice age that was predicted in the 1970's. Would that have been wise "risk management"? Is there an argument that we did take evasive measures (e.g. particulate pollution reduction) that was so effective we are now going to all burn up in 7 years, 9 months and 9 days? (Al Gore's Doomsday Clock).

Will Global Warming remediation plunge us into the ice age we were confidently predicting before Al Gore predicted global warming, or will it magically set the earths temperature to some unspecified optimum equilibrium? Inquiring minds need to know.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

Please supply evidence for "we were confidently predicting". Who was doing that?

Do you think that we went straight from that (fictional) belief to Al Gore? Do you have any idea what Gore's place is in all this?

Please do some basic reading before you expose your ignorance further.