Christian Ecology Equals Ethical Science
Update your understanding of the war between science
and religion, between ecology and mindless destruction.
The Primacy of Stewardship
First: Change the pre-supposition about the parables attributed to Jesus.
A) Traditional: Jesus is teaching religious morality.
B) Scientific update: Jesus is teaching ecological caretaking as the
first requirement for human survival in the natural universe.
What do the parables actually say?
What is the kingdom of heaven?
What is the main theme or main idea conveyed by the parables?
Why are there many parables about good servants and bad servants?
What do all the good servants have in common?
What do all the bad servants have in common?
Second: Now you are prepared to defend every ecological goal to both scientists and religionists.
They have to acknowledge that Jesus taught universal caretaking as the role assigned to technological humankind.
More than four billion people claim to believe in the God of Jesus.
For more information, go to (POS book details) or
order paper or ebook online at Amazon, or Barnes and Noble
Author's Note: Apologies (4/10/2021)
I regret a few typographical errors and missed edits, including spellings, in the current edition in print (POD) and ebook of The Primary of Stewardship.
1) Surprisingly, Chapter Three is titled in the text as:
"Panspermia (Life is disbursed throughout the universe)" This misspelling and misuse of "disbursed" was missed by four editorial readings. "Disbursed" means "paid out," a word commonly used in the world of accounting and business management. The correct and intended word is "dispersed" which means "distributed, spread, broadcast, disseminated." This misspelling may have originated with Microsoft's spell check code, which seems to change spellings without accurate grammatical reference to the contextual meaning of the word usage in the sentence. Whatever the origin, it was missed by the author and a professional editor.
2) Chapter Eight is titled in the text as:
"Jesus' Identity and Mission" which is correct in spelling and intended meaning. However, in the chapter heading the word "identity" is misspelled as "identify." I suspect the origin of this error in spelling is Microsoft's spell check code, which seems to change spellings without accurate grammatical reference to the contextual meaning of the word usage in the sentence. This error was missed through three editorial readings.
3. Spelling/usage edits applied to the ebook edition:
46/2/13: developmental ---> development
56/4/1/: farmer's ---> farmers
76/2/3: the most ---> the second most
77/chapter title: Identify ---> Identity
83/1/2: also the ---> also on the
83/1/5: life time ---> lifetime
88/2/18: breath ---> breathe
89/2/16: its ---> it's
105/1/17: uses ---> use
122/3/4: American ---> America
p. 112: The assertion that "science is a religion" is not intended to argue that the institutions of science actually are a religious organization, but that human behavior in regard to science, and in particular the behavior or scientists in regard to science, is similar to a religion because the world of science can be described accurately as being supported by the "seven pillars of religion," namely: People, Calendar, Ritual, History, Teleology, Ethics, Institutions. The point being made here is that if we considered the history of science, meaning more specifically the rise of modern science and technology, AND we looked for these seven pillars as applied to that history, we would find people or cultural groups that were originally attached to the development of what we call the principles of science and the scientific method. We could identify a calendar of historical events or celebrations of science or scientists, such as the presumed date of Galileo's experiment regarding gravity, or Isaac Newton's birthday or the date his famous work on gravitational force was published, or Einstein's birthday, or the date powered flight was first achieved, and so fourth. We could identify rituals such as the presentation and interview conducted by a university that confirms a student has risen to the level of doctor or doctoral degree. The award of the doctoral degree could be compared to the ordination of a pastor or priest. We certainly can identify the history of modern science, punctuated by technological inventions and new knowledge in mathematics or physics or chemistry. The invention of the internal combustion engine, discoveries related to electricity, electromagnetism, atomic power, come to mind, as well as the development of rocket science that made it possible for human beings to travel outside of our planet's atmosphere. A teleology of science would be various concepts of the universe, life, death, and the cosmic meaning of life subscribed to or sustained by scientists. Such a teleology might be summarily defined as humanism or ethical humanism. Scientific organizations and assemblies of scientists periodically discuss and publish statements that describe and recommend the ethics or ethical rules that should be applied to all scientific projects and endeavors. Obviously, colleges, universities, research laboratories, medical facilities, all fit the definition of institutions that represent and support the beliefs and behaviors that we call science. Therefore, the argument often pursued by scientists – as well as religionists -- that science is fundamentally different from religion is weak or essentially untrue. The human behavior pattern that we call science or scientific behavior follows the same paths as the behavior that we call "religion." A religion is a set of beliefs that includes overt rejection of alternative beliefs, and science is a set of beliefs that includes rejection of alternative beliefs. In fact, a careful and objective study of the history of religion, or of many religions, demonstrates that all religious beliefs originated with a concept that was intended to state or define a fact or facts about the real universe. The original motive for believing in God, or a god, was not faith, but observation. Historical research shows that religious institutions have often practiced science, and good science, and the reasons for difficulty with changing information arises not from religion itself but more so from human nature and in particular the conservative and self-serving qualities of established institutions and the tradition of being an accepted authority. It is hard to let go of old ideas as well as the comfort and privileges of social and economic position. To be wrong is to be discredited, and a visitor with new facts is not invited in. This behavior occurs in institutions that are not religious in origin.
-- end --
Link back to (Welcome) page or (Quick Look Directory) .