Sunday, February 26, 2006
Of Christians, Global Warming and Comments
Well,it's at certainly has been an interesting weekend here at Blogotional. I'm on the road with minimal connectivity and therefore limited posting but the hits keep on coming thanks to Amy Ridenour at the National Center Blog who has linked to me not once but twice.
The global warming joke has produced quite a bit of comment, which I have deleted because it was nothing short of insulting. The content of the comments, what little there has been of it when the insults and inability to get the joke have been subtracted, has been the same - That as a Christian, how dare I be so flip about something as serious as global warming; that Christian stewardship demands that I take it seriously.
Since they pick on my Christianity, I feel somewhat bound to address it. As a Christian, Jesus Christ is Lord of my life. That has some pretty serious consequences. I want to talk about just two.
Firstly, that means I have a much larger vision of God than I think most people do, and I readily acknowledge that no vision I have of God is sufficient. Stated another way, God, and by extention His creation, is beyond my comprehension. Now bear in mind I say that as a scientist that understand more about how the world works than most. Simply put, I lack the capability, as a creature and not creator, to understand everything.
The second consequence of being a Christian in my life is that I am duty bound to form a reasonable ethical system. It is not enough to form a sense of right and wrong. I have to figure out what is more right and more wrong, because situations in this life will make me choose. For example, and I have used this example on the blog before, I would consider it acceptable to lie if the lie would prevent a killer from finding his intended victim, even though lying is a pretty serious wrong.
And so we come to global warming. Let's consider it in light of the first consequence I mention. Global warming is a conjecture, based on a statistically derived model, formed from incomplete data. In other words, to "buy into" it uncritically and without serious thought presumes that we creatures understand God and His creation a lot more than my Christian faith will allow me to presume. Thus, attempting to use my faith as a lever to get me to support efforts against global warming is not going to work.
Now let's look at the second consequence. Let's presume global warming is real - I do not hold that, but will grant it for the sake of this argument only - for me, as a Christian, to devote a great deal of time an energy to combatting it, I must determine that it is more wrong somehow than say the genocides in Africa, or out-of-wedlock birth, or abortion. The presumed, for the sake of this arguement only, effects of global warming are simply too indirect, too indistinct, and too chronologically distant for them to be somehow more wrong than things directly in my face.
As Bjorn Lumborg argues in his book The Skeptical Environmentalist it is more efficient economically to deal with the consequences of global warming than it is to try and stop it. Presuming global warming, ethically, my time is much better spent delivering food to the hungry directly, fighting the genocides, building sea walls and so forth than it is combatting greenhouse gas emissions.
Global warming is a loser issue for Christians. I have posted other reasons why here and here and here.
Let's add to the list of reasons why, that it presumes a lesser view of the Lordship of Christ and that it is not compatible with a reasonably formed ethical system.
Related Tags: Christianity, global warming, coments, ethics, Lordship
The global warming joke has produced quite a bit of comment, which I have deleted because it was nothing short of insulting. The content of the comments, what little there has been of it when the insults and inability to get the joke have been subtracted, has been the same - That as a Christian, how dare I be so flip about something as serious as global warming; that Christian stewardship demands that I take it seriously.
Since they pick on my Christianity, I feel somewhat bound to address it. As a Christian, Jesus Christ is Lord of my life. That has some pretty serious consequences. I want to talk about just two.
Firstly, that means I have a much larger vision of God than I think most people do, and I readily acknowledge that no vision I have of God is sufficient. Stated another way, God, and by extention His creation, is beyond my comprehension. Now bear in mind I say that as a scientist that understand more about how the world works than most. Simply put, I lack the capability, as a creature and not creator, to understand everything.
The second consequence of being a Christian in my life is that I am duty bound to form a reasonable ethical system. It is not enough to form a sense of right and wrong. I have to figure out what is more right and more wrong, because situations in this life will make me choose. For example, and I have used this example on the blog before, I would consider it acceptable to lie if the lie would prevent a killer from finding his intended victim, even though lying is a pretty serious wrong.
And so we come to global warming. Let's consider it in light of the first consequence I mention. Global warming is a conjecture, based on a statistically derived model, formed from incomplete data. In other words, to "buy into" it uncritically and without serious thought presumes that we creatures understand God and His creation a lot more than my Christian faith will allow me to presume. Thus, attempting to use my faith as a lever to get me to support efforts against global warming is not going to work.
Now let's look at the second consequence. Let's presume global warming is real - I do not hold that, but will grant it for the sake of this argument only - for me, as a Christian, to devote a great deal of time an energy to combatting it, I must determine that it is more wrong somehow than say the genocides in Africa, or out-of-wedlock birth, or abortion. The presumed, for the sake of this arguement only, effects of global warming are simply too indirect, too indistinct, and too chronologically distant for them to be somehow more wrong than things directly in my face.
As Bjorn Lumborg argues in his book The Skeptical Environmentalist it is more efficient economically to deal with the consequences of global warming than it is to try and stop it. Presuming global warming, ethically, my time is much better spent delivering food to the hungry directly, fighting the genocides, building sea walls and so forth than it is combatting greenhouse gas emissions.
Global warming is a loser issue for Christians. I have posted other reasons why here and here and here.
Let's add to the list of reasons why, that it presumes a lesser view of the Lordship of Christ and that it is not compatible with a reasonably formed ethical system.
Related Tags: Christianity, global warming, coments, ethics, Lordship
