Lawrence Krauss On the Pope's Encyclical: Not Even Close?

Lasrick writes: Lawrence Krauss muses on the hoopla surrounding Pope Francis' encyclical on climate change, and finds the document lacking: 'It is ironic that while the scientific community has long tried to raise warning signals and induce action to address human-induced climate change, an encyclical from the pope on this subject is being taken by many as an ultimate call to action on this urgent issue.'

Comments

Re:Reconciling faith with science

[mi]

A church almost by definition cannot be truly pro-science.

It certainly can be — faith operates in a different plane, so to speak. It neither contradicts nor supports science, nor is it contradicted nor supported by science in return.

do not readily accept questioning of that faith even in the face of overwhelming evidence

The Lord's ways are neither known, nor even knowable — in the very principle, there can be no "evidence" supporting nor denying His existence and power. Unlike Science, Religion does not need to offer predictions nor make falsifiable statements. Some ancient bishop is on record with the famous "Credo quia absurdum" — whether the sentiment is beautiful or stupid in your opinion, it is decidedly not scientific, nor purports to be.

I think science and faith of the sort espoused by organized religion are irreconcilable to one another.

True that — in the way "yellow" is irreconcilable with "soft". The two are from completely orthogonal domains.

The interesting bit here — and what the down-modded OP was, probably, hinting at, is that "Climate Science" is, in fact, a religion now. Unable to come up with any materialized predictions, and all of their falsifiable statements ending up getting falsified indeed, the proponents of the idea, that humanity is guilty and must right its ways or be punished (with extinction) sound more and more like the preachers and less like scientists.