Search Comments

God's global warnings

Posted: Sunday, November 08, 2015 at 10:10 PM EST - Item ID: 515

The writer's "Believe it" Sept. 30 Dispatch letter describes his version of the opposing sides on global warming. One side thinks humans have the ability to correct the warming and humans should make the effort. The opposing argument regards this view a "fiasco" because God would remedy the situation if needed. Therefore humans should trust God and do nothing - at least until "cause and effect have been proven." Climate change "is strictly a result of Mother Nature and her spouse Father Time's way of doing things."

This God vs. science analysis has flaws. On the issue of proof, the Father Time side accepts only global warming. But all else, including the enormity of risks, greenhouse gases, related type and magnitude of human consumption and resulting potential for human correction, are all presumably speculations. Ninety-seven percent consensus among qualified scientists apparently isn't enough proof for action. What would be? Doesn't mixing God and science (belief and proof) in this way allow a rationalization of any fiction one wishes?

Theologically, the writer cites no biblical texts on climate change, recognizing that seasons and weather are different from climate. Nor are any biblical texts cited to support a view that God is obliged to correct negative effects of human behavior without repentance and change. Indeed, declarations of belief in God's power over nature's laws can become a sin of tempting God (Matthew 4:7, Exodus 17:2,7).

In a flood threat, invoking trust in God as reason to disregard evacuation orders would be dubious theology. Millions of Americans died because of the tobacco lobby's effectiveness in delaying acceptance of tobacco's health risks. Citing God to delay action on climate risks not only is an enormous harm to life, but also, like the erroneous Galileo affair, it can diminish human belief in biblical truth.

Records 1 to 1 of 1