Say, Would Jesus Accept Climate Change?

Personally, I have to wonder whether Jesus would care about “climate change”, what with all his teachings on tolerance, love, redemption, and, first, repentance as a path to God. Anyhow, it seems Warmists are using religion more and more as a means to push their pseudo-religion

Would Jesus Accept Climate Science?

Climate change is one of the biggest and most divisive environmental issues we’ve faced. Not only is the science scary and the challenge daunting, but it calls into question the very way we live our lives.

Perhaps that’s why climate science is causing a schism of sorts among American Christians. On one side you have Dr. E. Calvin Beisner, spokesman for the conservative group, Cornwall Alliance, and former professor of historical theology and social ethics at Knox Theological Seminary, who claims that climate science is alarmist junk. Then on the other side, you have Dr. Katharine Hayhoe, director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University and an Evangelical Christian, who educates people on the dangers of climate change.

With all this rhetoric going back and forth, what’s a Christian in the U.S. supposed to believe? Do climate scientists lack ethics when they say climate change is real and dangerous? Or is there some truth to what they say?

Perhaps some of these Warmist religious leaders should be more worried about Godlessness and a loss of morals.

Whom should a Christian believe? Should they assume all climate scientists are just furthering a government agenda when they conclude that climate change is real? Or should they accept the science?

The answer to that question lies in the exercise of free will. God gave us brains to make good choices. It’s just important to remember that every choice has consequences.

I imagine sitting in a room. Next door I can hear my neighbor yelling for help. One person in the room with me says, “Oh don’t worry. They’ve shouted for help before and it’s turned out to be nothing. There’s no observable proof that they’re actually in trouble this time.” The other person in the room says, “Well, it might really be something this time. Maybe you should check it out.”

What would Jesus do? Would he go check on his neighbor? Or would he wait for blood before acting?

He’d probably wonder why religious leaders support abortion. More on the writer, Robyn Camparo Purchia

I’m an organic-eating, energy-saving naturalist who composts and tree hugs in her spare time. I have a background in environmental law, lobbying, and field work. I believe in God; however, I do not call myself a Christian or a Jew or a member of any religion. I am merely someone who finds a spiritual connection to all humans and the environment.

Spiritual connection. Um huh.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

13 Responses to “Say, Would Jesus Accept Climate Change?”

  1. Blick says:

    There is so much to say about this whole mindset. However, one idea needs correcting. There are no spiritual connections between people or between people and the physical world (environment). Between people there may be emotional or mental connections or Soulmates, deep understandings that surpass words. Ditto for physical things. Spiritual connections have to do with the sense of the power within or represented by the person or thing. The worship of the sun for its life giving, storms for their destructive power, rocks, cult leaders, etc is for the spiritual power that is represented not the thing or person itself.
    All humans have this sense of spiritual powers beyond /behind the physical objects /physical world; there are no atheistic societies. Spiritual connections and mystical experience is with spiritual powers not things.

  2. Jeffery says:

    Here’s one difference between Dr. E. Calvin Beisner and Dr. Katherine Hayhoe.

    Beisner signed the Cornwall Declaration (below) and Professor Hayhoe did not.

    “We believe Earth and its ecosystems – created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.”

    The Cornwall manifesto is not a scientific approach but a religious mythology approach.

    Here’s another difference:

    “Dr.” Beisner is a theologian and Dr. Hayhoe is a practicing scientist.

    Dr. Hayhoe is not using her evangelical religion to “push” anything. She is saying that being an evangelical does not preclude one from thinking. She is saying that there’s no religious reason for an evangelical to reject science (although most do).

  3. john says:

    Teach do you hate the Pope because he believes in AGW?
    Even the very conservative Southern Baptists are going further AGW http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/us/10baptist.html?_r=0

  4. john says:

    any thoughts on what the Jesus would do about those kids without papers?

  5. Jay says:

    These folks are absolutely correct! If Jesus were here today, he would be leading the fight against global warming! Clearly any serious Christian must join in the fight to stop global warming.

    That is, this is clearly, fundamentally a religious issue. And therefore, for the government to get involved would be a violation of the principle of separation of church and state. The government should stay out, and leave this issue to the churches.

  6. Jay says:

    Notice the totally unbiased wording: Dr. Beisner “claims that climate science is alarmist junk”, but Dr. Hayhoe “educates people on the dangers of climate change”.

  7. Jay says:

    “The other person in the room says, “Well, it might really be something this time. Maybe you should check it out.” What would Jesus do? Would he go check on his neighbor? Or would he wait for blood before acting?”

    This almost resembles a serious argument, so let’s consider it.

    Suppose someone banged on your door and said, “The Martians are invading!! You have to flee the city now before it’s too late!” Would you pack up and leave? I’m guessing probably not. But why not? Sure, there have been hundreds of warnings of alien invasions in the past that have turned out to be hoaxes or crazy people. But maybe this guy is right. The stakes are so high, are you going to wait until spaceships land before you take action? You probably will wait. Why? Because he has offered no convincing evidence that his claims are true.

    How much more so if he said that you have to burn your house down to prevent the aliens from using it as a base, or kill everyone wearing a red shirt because those are aliens in disguise.

    The relevant question is not just, “Is the claimed danger serious?”. We must also ask, “What is the cost of the proposed action, and what is the probability that the warning is valid?”

  8. Jay says:

    “Beisner signed the Cornwall Declaration (below) and Professor Hayhoe did not.” So the fact that Beisner is a member of an organization that doubts global warming makes him “biased”. The fact that Hayhoe is a member of an organization that affirms global warming makes her “an expert”.

    “She is saying that there’s no religious reason for an evangelical to reject science (although most do).” And when you say that most evangelicals “reject science”, I take it that what you mean is that they fail to believe something solely because a person in authority says that it is so, but instead insist on seeing the evidence for themselves and evaluating the evidence for themselves. To the modern liberal, asking for evidence is “anti-science”, believing what you are told without question is “pro-science”.

  9. Jeffery says:

    Jay,

    Beisner is a theologian. Dr. Hayhoe is a climate scientist. Global warming is not a theological issue, but a scientific one. Beisner is not biased, he’s unqualified. He would be the go-to guy for discussing God’s grace, though.

    The Cornwall Declaration denies the science of global warming, proposing instead that God would not create a world that would warm to the detriment of humans.

    There are not two equal sides debating evidence. One side has all the evidence and the other side has their belief.

    As we learn more about our physical world, sometimes truths supplant myths. The Earth is not the center of the universe. The Earth is a sphere; and is about 4 billion years old. Life on Earth has evolved to the current state. The Earth is warming from burning fossil fuels.

    Clearly, anyone who believes the Cornwall Declaration is not open to evidence.

  10. Jeffery says:

    Jay typed:

    “And when you say that most evangelicals “reject science”, I take it that what you mean is that they fail to believe something solely because a person in authority says that it is so, but instead insist on seeing the evidence for themselves and evaluating the evidence for themselves.”

    Not exactly. No one should accept a scientific principle based solely on the fact that almost all the experts in a field believe it. But let’s be honest, most evangelicals are not rejecting the theory of AGW based on their personal analysis of the evidence. For many, the theory is in conflict with their religious beliefs (as evidenced by the Cornwall Declaration). Most evangelicals do not believe that the human species has evolved from a common ancestor, not because of apparent flaws in the evidence – but because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

    If your child is ill and you poll 1000 knowledgeable physicians about what to do and 990 of them recommend a specific course of treatment and 10 say he’s not really ill, whom would you rely on? Or would you wait for more evidence so that the final 10 agreed with the 990?

  11. jay says:

    “But let’s be honest, most evangelicals are not rejecting the theory of AGW based on their personal analysis of the evidence. For many, the theory is in conflict with their religious beliefs (as evidenced by the Cornwall Declaration).”

    And your evidence for this assertion is … ? Have you taken a poll? Convened a focus group? Or do you come to this conclusion based on your intuitive, philosophical beliefs about what people who disagree with you MUST be thinking? Have you actually looked at any evidence or just made up conclusions that fit your preconceptions?

    Saying that someone’s position must be prejudiced because he signed a statement affirming that position confuses cause and effect. Did he take this position because he signed the statement? Or did he sign the statement because he takes this position? Did he come to his conclusions first and then look at the evidence? Or did he look at the evidence and then come to his conclusions? I try to work on the assumption that other people, even people that I disagree with, are behaving rationally until I see some evidence to the contrary.

    Plenty of AGW people have signed various statements affirming that AGW is a threat and action must be taken now. Would you say that the fact that they have signed such statements makes their opinions biased and irrelevant?

    Just because you consider the evidence for your side of a debate to be convincing doesn’t mean that others see it that way. In the case of AGW, I find this attitude particularly baffling, as the actual, experimental results are that global temperatures are NOT increasing, and haven’t for what, 15 years now? Yes, yes, I’ve heard all the arguments why the experimental results are misleading. But it is the AGW side that is dismissing the evidence, and the doubters who are affirming the evidence. Again, you are saying that looking at the actual experimental results and drawing logical conclusions from them is “anti-science”, while affirming unproven theories based on speculation is “pro-science”.

    “Most evangelicals do not believe that the human species has evolved from a common ancestor, not because of apparent flaws in the evidence – but because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.”

    All creationists that I know — myself included — doubt evolution because they find the evidence unconvincing. Personally, I am a Fundamentalist because a friend suggested that I examine the evidence for evolution and creation, and when I did, I was shocked to discover that, contrary to what all my teachers in school had told me, the evidence for creation theory was stronger. Thermodynamics, the fossil record, irreducible complexity, genetics, etc etc all pointed to creation. Today we are seeing soft tissue in dinosaur fossils, we have the evidence for the speed of geological processes from Mt St Helens, etc, the case for creation today is better than it’s ever been.

    I’m sure many Christians would not care about the issue were it not for the religious implications, but I don’t know anyone who says that he affirms creation even though he’s convinced that it is false, or that he doesn’t care to look at the evidence because he’s already made up his mind. Maybe my friends aren’t typical. I don’t claim to have done a study on the matter. But read books written by creationists. I’m hard pressed to think of one that isn’t all about discussing the scientific evidence. I can’t think of any creationist book I have ever read that said that the scientific evidence doesn’t matter.

  12. jay says:

    “Beisner is a theologian. Dr. Hayhoe is a climate scientist. Global warming is not a theological issue, but a scientific one. Beisner is not biased, he’s unqualified. He would be the go-to guy for discussing God’s grace, though.”

    Oh, okay, I see your point there. So for example, Charles Darwin dropped out of medical school and got his degree in theology. Ken Ham (president of Answers in Genesis) has a degree in environmental biology. So Darwin might be the go-to guy for discussing God’s grace, but Ken Ham would be the authority on questions about biology, like evolution.

  13. Jeffery says:

    Jay,

    Two-thirds of evangelicals think man has existed in the present form since the beginning. I contend that most reject evolution for ideological not scientific reasons. You contend that evangelicals reject the evidence for evolution and embrace evidence for creationism (which also is the biblical story). Most evangelicals believe the creation story of their sacred text and you want me to believe it’s because of their evaluation of evolution? I don’t buy it, sorry.

    Your argument is that current evangelicals are less gullible than the actual scientists over the centuries who have discovered things. Or that they believe the stories in their sacred text.

    I didn’t claim that signing the Declaration proved bias. It proves that the signers were taking an ideological rather than a scientific stance.

    There are no ongoing scientific arguments about the basics of evolution or global warming. Both are scientific truths according to the scientific community.

    Without doubt there exist those who write and support intelligent design and creation “science” independent of actual scientists, e.g., the Discovery Institute, but they have little impact in the scientific community.

    The strategy used for Denying global warming and evolution are similar, i.e., attacking the known science and offering a metaphysical alternative dressed up to look “sciency”. Intelligent design is the alternative to evolution and natural variability is the alternative to AGW. Proponents don’t like to admit it but their God is the source of the design and the variability.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5690 access attempts in the last 7 days.