So, is that blasphemy or rather is it intellectual honesty?
The origin of evil in this world is a controversial subject (like immigration, taxes, religion, accountability, and climate change).
The notion of the origin of evil, in the sense of social power, has been discussed in terms of scientific research and religion on the Toxins of Power blog in times past (A Religious Doctrine For Toxins of Power, 2/3/10; Abiotic Evolution: Can It Explain An Origin For The Toxins of Power? - 3, 1/17/15).
That governments of civilizations could be evil enough to destroy themselves, along with their own citizenry, is unthinkable in many academic persuasions even though when we look around, today, to examine what is supposedly the most advanced state that human civilization has ever reached, we see two threats to the very survival of human civilization: climate change and nuclear war (Civilization Is Now On Suicide Watch, 2, 3, 4, 5).
These realities today are not out of step with the history of societies of the past:
"In other words, a society does not ever die 'from natural causes', but always dies from suicide or murder --- and nearly always from the former, as this chapter has shown."(A Study of History, by Arnold J. Toynbee). Nevertheless, these observations of history are not believed by some people who are called "deniers."
One chief among them, in terms of climate change denial, is Senator Inhofe.
He bases his denial on his perception of god and human civilization:
In 2012, Inhofe's The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future was published by WorldNetDaily Books, presenting his global warming conspiracy theory. He said that, because "God's still up there", the "arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."(Wikipedia, Jim Inhofe, emphasis added). He evidently thinks that all things climate constitute "what He [God] is doing in the climate" unabated and unassisted by human civilization.
Someone taught that to Senator Inhofe, because, as seen by philosophers, "knowledge" is at its fundamental roots, in essence a belief and trust in what other people tell us:
I find myself believing all sorts of things for which I do not possess evidence: that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer, that my car keeps stalling because the carburetor needs to be rebuild, that mass media threaten democracy, that slums cause emotional disorders, that my irregular heart beat is premature ventricular contraction, that students' grades are not correlated with success in the nonacademic world, that nuclear power plants are not safe (enough) ...(The Pillars of Knowledge: Faith and Trust?). Thus, this belief or trust essence of "knowledge" is something that is not limited to religion.
The list of things I believe, though I have no evidence for the truth of them, is, if not infinite, virtually endless. And I am finite. Though I can readily imagine what I would have to do to obtain the evidence that would support any one of my beliefs, I cannot imagine being able to do this for all of my beliefs. I believe too much; there is too much relevant evidence (much of it available only after extensive, specialized training); intellect is too small and life too short.
What are we as epistemologists to say about all these beliefs? If I, without the available evidence, nevertheless believe a proposition, are my belief and I in that belief necessarily irrational or non-rational? Is my belief then mere belief (Plato's right opinion)? If not, why not? Are there other good reasons for believing propositions, reasons which do not reduce to having evidence for the truth of those propositions? What would these reasons look like?
In this paper I want to consider the idea of intellectual authority, particularly that of experts. I want to explore the "logic" or epistemic structure of an appeal to intellectual authority and the way in which such an appeal constitutes justification for believing and knowing.
The Bible, which Inhofe says he uses to derive his beliefs, essentially implies the same thing that Stephen Fry implies, but it seems contrary to Inhofe.
"THE GOD OF THIS AGE has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." (2 Cor. 4:4, emphasis added)So, who is "the god" of this deadly Anthropocene scene, the Sixth Mass Extinction (Your God Wears Combat Boots, Hypothesis: The Cultural Amygdala - 4)?
"Again, THE DEVIL took him to a very high mountain and showed him ALL THE KINGDOMS OF THE WORLD and their splendor. “ALL THIS I WILL GIVE YOU,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.” (Matthew 4:8-9, emphasis added)
"For then there will be great distress, unequalled from the beginning of the world until now — and never to be equalled again. If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive ..." - Jesus Christ (Matt. 24, emphasis added)
Who controls the weather, and thus by implication, originated climate change (scientists say Petroleum Civilization, Inhofe says it's his God)?
One implication set forth in the scriptures above is that an evil power is the god of "this age", but specifies no exact time frame, except to imply the epoch when a human face is found on human-government bodies.
Inhofe's implication also focuses on a non-human epigovernment of "God," working with individual human governments, to change the climate of the Earth, evidently with "righteous, natural, God made" fossil fuels (Oilah Akbar! Oilah Akbar!; Message of Science & Religion - Western - 2).
Let's consider a few more examples of the nature of beliefs, just to extend the context, such as:
Lucifer is just another name for Satan, who as head of the evil world-system is the real, though invisible, power behind the successive rulers of Tyre, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, and all of those evil rulers that we have seen come and go in the history of the world. This passage [Isaiah 14:12-14] goes beyond human history and marks the beginning of sin in the universe and the very fall of Satan in the pristine, sinless spheres before the creation of man.(Story of Lucifer). A contrary or alternate view considers the nature of evil, using a different analysis:
Throughout its history and teachings, religion has preached the merits of good and condemned the temptations of evil. Good and evil are principles conceived by humankind and exist independently of religions and theology. The idea of evil is deeply embedded in human existence. It feeds on bad morals and harmful, injurious behavior. To think that animals have evil intentions is extremely debatable. Animals kill for survival and weed out the weak among them through natural selection. There are no moral issues within the animal kingdom. In the vast expanse of interstellar space and time there is no evil; only energy as it relates to the Universe. There is nothing evil about planets and stars. It seems, rather, that a mind capable of conscious thought, must introduce the possibility of intended evil. Humans are conditioned to learn the difference between good and bad according to how it relates to society’s survival.(There is no Devil ... no Hell, emphasis added). But one thing is for sure: if evil exists then it came from somewhere, and thus, evil has an origin.
All wrongs have an origin, then a subsequent history (conflating "history" with "origin" is a common mistake; a mistake because they are composed of different dynamics, i.e., they are not exactly the same).
Justice is the identification of the source of a wrong, then applying some perceived remedy (punishment, rehabilitation, etc.) to the source of the wrong, while avoiding blaming or harming the victims of that wrong.
Justice must replace "Just Us."
Anything short of that is unjust, whether done in a religious context, or done in a secular context.
Interview of Stephen Fry, evidently an atheist, making some of the above points:
Canadian Neil Young describes the evil being brought upon The First Nations, and everyone else ultimately, in his beloved country: