On the contrary, the environmental future is quite well known. Haven't you heard all the fuss about climate change, environmental degradation, pollution, etc.? Taking action to address issues raised by scientific evidence is not a faith-based approach. It's simple common sense.
1) you are assuming, for some reason, that I am questioning the liklihood of the problems you mentioned
2) yes, I have heard of those things
3) simple common sense, it could be argued, is not necessarily the logical, reasoned out (or even correct) rational process that atheists often deride theists for NOT using in relation to God. Simple common sense will also run up against a lot of problems in relation to things we know from science. I think in this context an appeal to simply common sense shows that you don't get what SAM is up to here - which is why I was trying to cut down on the amount of time it took before you caught on - and highlights her point. One person's common sense is another person's supernatural or politically motivated belief.
I think SAM's case here, which is generally implied rather than directly stated, has problems, but I also think is does present the edge of a sticky issue for atheists. How much intuition/common sense (as one sees it)/faith is one allowed to have before it becomes categorized as irrational.
I've read your posts. I am sure you have reached conclusions about, for example, climate change, via reading and analysis, etc. But SAM is cutting below such specifics. She is asking why atheists would be conservationists and be concerned about an unknowable future. Something that is not here, that is not tangible, nor can it be tested. I think another tack she could take is why are atheists who are often determinists would be concerned about the future. It is what it is (already in a sense). Their concerns and beliefs about what should be done must be all admitted to be irrational. Especially if they are over say, 50 and stand a reasonable chance of dying 'naturally' before the whole thing falls apart. In fact a moment's reflection on this quote of yours.
the environmental future is quite well known
is philosophically interesting. You are speaking about the future as if it was existant. You are also implying, in fact stating, that the future will be a certain way. Both of these qualities raise issues for atheists in relation to their behavior, for example around conservationism and epistemology.
The atheist can come back and say that given what we know about the past and the changes we have witnessed we can considers certain futures more likely than others and also that it is overwhelmingly likely that there will be a world here and so on. So the atheist can feel that belief in a God and belief in the liklihood of certain futures are beliefs of different kinds, the latter also being more likely. I don't find this completely adequate. I disagree with SAM that the two beliefs are the same, yet, at the same time I think there is a degree of working from axioms that are not and really cannot be tested involved. (remember this is in a philosophy forum where issues like the existence of the future can come up in ways that are not practical for most scientists).
Curling up in her post's is also a critique, I believe, in that while atheists certainly can have and do have values and concerns and ethics, THESE MUST BE GROUNDED ON FAITH. Evolution is evolution. There is no objective value without a God. We can have desires, but we cannot argue, for example, that diversity of species is good, unless we are appealing to what she would class as irrational justifications - casting this idea back at the atheists.
This does not mean that atheists have no values, but that their values are based on an irrational leap. If they allow themselves this irrational leap - and a look through the forums will find atheists quite sure that the war in Iraq was right (or wrong), that abortion should be legal (generally) and so on. The consider their positions rational.
Objectively (given the beliefs of many athiests) both a Mad Max future and a sustainable diverse set of diverse ecosystems future are neutral.
My double reaction to SAM's writing in this thread can be seen in this post and the one above it.
