Monckton requires religious certification for scientists?

Lord Christopher Monckton, the 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley - Chief Policy Adviser of the SPPI

Christopher Monckton is one of the leading lights in the movement to discredit the International Panel on Climate Change, climate science and its findings on the human contribution to current climate change. Local climate change sceptics and deniers like Ian Wishart, the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, The Climate Coversation Group and bloggers pro0moting a denier platform eagerly promote his statements and videos.

Monckton is the Chief Policy Adviser of the Science & Public Policy Institute (SPPI) which disseminates propaganda aimed at discrediting climate science and scientists. So it’s worth considering what his ideological approach to science is.

Science gives us nothing!

Monckton has a rather revealing article, What is science without religion?, on the SPPI blog. Much of the article attempts to discredit science and scientists, often associating science with the worst aspects of humanity – similar to Ben Stein‘s approach in his creationist Expelled film. But the last two paragraphs hint at a very objectionable policy towards science. He says

“Precisely because the worst sort of scientists are prone to say, intolerantly, that religion is not a legitimate pastime for any scientist, many scientists have come to the view that they no longer need to adhere to any moral precept at all. Morality, they say, is the province of religion and not of science. We, they say, can do what we like as long as we can get away with it, and there is no such distinction any more as true or false, right or wrong, just or unjust.

Perhaps, therefore, no one should be allowed to practice in any of the sciences, particularly in those sciences that have become the mere political footballs of the leading pressure-groups, unless he can certify that he adheres to one of those major religions – Christianity outstanding among them – that preach the necessity of morality, and the reality of the distinction between that which is so and that which is not. For science without the morality that perhaps religion alone can give is nothing.”

So what can we take from this. He is saying without religion, specifically Christianity, one has no morality or concept of truth. Really he is proposing that science should be subordinate to relgion, to its concept of truth and morality. Instead of scientists determining the accuracy of their ideas by testing against reality they must test them against religious “truth” and “morals.”

Climate change denial similar to intelligent design

This is exactly the approach taken by the anti-science activists of the intelligent design movement. While I don’t by any means wish to equate very climate change sceptic with intelligent design, Monckton’s position does give some ideological explanation to the observation that many climate change deniers are also Christian apologists and intelligent design/creationism proponents.

So just imagine of Mockton had his way. Scientists would have to have religious certification, capable of being withdrawn anytime their findings contradict the religious “truth” promulgated by the Church.

Imagined lining up every six moths for your “scientific warrant of fitness.” Being examined by the local Bishop, Priest, Parson, Iman, Monk, etc., and, depending on how they thought you did in their test, relying on their accreditation, their stamp of approval.

I guess that’s one way of eliminating climate change!

What a silly man.

Permalink

Similar articles

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Share

Advertisements

14 responses to “Monckton requires religious certification for scientists?

  1. Some scientists believe that telling lies is fine in many cases… and the end justifies the means (example: some Climate Scientists have been overheard to say exactly that).

    Most ‘orthodox’ Christians will struggle to tell lies, for any reason. Some of them are scientists.

    No, scientists should not have to sign up to any ‘moral code’. It would be a meaningless and unenforceable gesture.

    Like

  2. Ross – you have overheard these guys, have you??

    Or are you the one telling porkies??

    In my experience Christians frequently lie.

    Like

  3. It is obvious to any observer who stops long to look that morality precedes religion by necessity.

    Like

  4. That should read ‘long enough

    Like

  5. Ken, sorry for the delayed reply.
    This was the example I was thinking of, but couldn’t locate.

    “I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007 (reprinted here http://is.gd/76dVr)

    Like

  6. Ross – that is hearsay and hardly telling lies.

    Compare that with all the leis regularly told by preachers, creationists, etc.

    One advantage we have in science is the requirement to test against reality. this helps to overcome subjective desires.

    That criteria just doesn’t exist in religion.

    It is that criteria that Monckton would dearly love to remove.

    Like

  7. Watching the Deniers

    Wow! I’d only just come across this. Id’ never really come across Monckton’s religious views before, but it makes sense in the context of his denialism.

    How much is it religiously motivated?

    What was that about the Inquisition and all that?

    Like

  8. Richard Christie

    I’ve seen a Youtube clip where he for all intents and purposes said ‘grace” before starting the speech. lol. It was at some USA think-tank conference, I’m sorry that can’t provide details off hand.

    Like

  9. Pingback: Potty Training Christopher Monckton « Greenfyre’s

  10. Pingback: Questionnaire for wannabe science minister Dennis Jensen – which of these Lord Monckton statements do you actually agree with? « Graham Readfearn

  11. Pingback: Questionnaire for wannabe science minister Dennis Jensen : Renew Economy

  12. Pingback: A questionnaire for wannabe science minister and climate science sceptic Dennis Jensen MP | Graham Readfearn

  13. Pingback: Eco Saver » Eco News

  14. Pingback: The Monckton Files: Hypocrisplosion, Islamophobe Style | Climate Asylum

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s