|
Theism and the Theory of Global Warming
Before joining the quickly growing and popular “global
warming” movement, we need to step back and think about what, if
anything, is really going on with climate changes and why this is
suddenly a big concern, especially in the United States. And before
getting swept away by all of the alarming rhetoric, we should
re-examine our basic beliefs.
One can
certainly get lost in all of the arguments and ‘evidence’ that the
public gets inundated with concerning so called global warming. And
for every group of scientists that join in the gloom and doom
argument of global warming, there seem to be just as many
scientists who debunk it providing their own evidence. But the
questions that beg to be asked are: is the planet warming and if it
is, is this the first time or is this cyclical behavior? And if it
is warming, is mankind responsible? The fact is, there is evidence
of climate changes of all types since the birth of our planet. Is
the climate in some regions presently showing a warming trend? Yes,
according to particular statistical evidence. Because we now have
the ability with quickly advancing technology that we didn’t have
just ten years ago to take minute measurements as well as correlate
and produce data, we can provide statistics like the fact that in
the past 50 years, average yearly temperatures in Alaska and
Siberia rose about 3.6 degrees to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit. What does
this mean? Do we really know? Is this significant? Have these areas
experienced warming before? How about cooling?
Scientists
have satellite imagery and dozens of other tools in use to support
the global warming theory, but of course there are flaws in the
theory as well, such as what some argue is not global in nature at
all. Recent NASA satellite tropospheric temperature data reveals
that the Southern Hemisphere has not warmed at all in the past 25
years. Some politicians and ex-politicians would have you believe
that the consensus of scientists is that there is a major global
warming problem caused by manmade processes resulting in enough
green house gases to damage or clog our ozone. But science has
nothing to do with consensus; politics is the business of
consensus. Are we ignorant of the fact that there could be and
probably is special interest at work behind this current “awareness”
campaign? Books have been written, films produced, speeches given
and many dollars made on the subject of global warming. In the
1970s the claims were of global cooling and the coming of a ‘second
ice age’.
Our
technology coupled with the instant communication and saturation of
ideas via dozens of network and cable news channels and the
internet, allow certain findings to be quickly transformed into the
latest media concern. Global warming has been blamed for increase
in rainfall and storms as well as drought conditions, decrease in
snow fall as well as increase in some areas. In fact, global
warming has been blamed for every extreme weather pattern the world
experiences now except for the seasonal brutal cold that still
exists in the usual areas.
Statistics
and measurements can be tossed back and forth all day. The purpose
here is not to prove or disprove global warming, I’m not a
scientist. And if I was, I could only provide some data and a
theory. In my opinion the troubling part of the global warming
topic as
presented, is the stated end result; that due to mankind’s
affect on the planet, he will eventually burn up, or die in some
type of environment related catastrophe. Doesn’t this idea suggest
that mankind is completely on his own and is capable of wiping out
the planet, and that there is no other factor present in the
universe? (So convinced of
this idea, in preparation for the inevitable destruction of our
world’s crops due to a future global warming induced drought, or
some other global devastation, a US billionaire has invested 30
million dollars on a “Doomsday Seed Vault” located on a Norwegian
island which will stock pile seed for crops.)
Discussion
of the possible deterioration and demise of our planet and what
amount of effect or control man has in this process must begin with
the basics of our existence and the beginning of it. It boils down
to whom or what created the planet in question, and why. Was and is
there a purpose for the billions of humans that have come and gone
on this planet. This leads to the inescapable topic of God. As
basic and relevant as this topic seems, it is surprising how seldom
it is brought into the discussion.
The following are the five possible perspectives on the
subject of God as related to humanity and the future of our planet:
·
There is no God and never
was: Atheism, everything
came from nothing for no reason, based on the theory that the
universe is self existent, self contained, self sufficient and
represents ultimate reality. Our solar system, the Earth, mankind
and all forms of life came about by some sort of phenomenon, by
random chance. Perhaps an explosion of matter created the cosmos,
then undirected, naturalistic evolution produced everything that
followed over billions of years. There is no purpose for anything
including human life. Mankind is left on its own, at the mercy of
the present universe and his own destructive capabilities. He came
about by some incredible event and can be ‘taken out’ by some incredible
event. The Earth is basically spinning around the sun completely on
its own until some cosmic occurrence or manmade process ends it
all. (This theory ignores the finely tuned, precise and balanced
nature of our galaxy, solar system and Earth, the behavior of which
has been sustained for thousands (millions?) of years. The
relationship of the planets to Earth, the exact size, distance and
nature of our sun and moon and how they relate to Earth, the
protective magnetic field and five layers of atmosphere, the
presence of water content, seasons, simple and incredibly
complicated life forms, continued procreation…)
·
God is dead: A supreme being created the
universe and Earth long ago but is now dead. Which means this god
is not omnipotent, and also had a beginning or birth. Mankind is
now alone and at the mercy of the universe. After all these years
of life on Earth, his destiny will be determined by catastrophe or
self destruction. If this mortal being created the Earth and then
died, it is certainly possible that he created a faulty or weak
Earth not capable of withstanding the pollution that mankind would
generate. This idea would make global warming or a catastrophic
finale easier to rationalize.
As a side note:
Christianity would be a farce, because if this is the God of the
Christian faith and
there was a Christ, He is still lying in a tomb in Jerusalem.
Mankind is lost in death and without hope.
·
God is imperfect, not
omnipotent: A supreme being
had just enough power and ability to create a flawed universe, and
can only sustain it so long. This being is imperfect and has
weakness and limitations. Because of the creation of a faulty
planet Earth, it is completely susceptible to the effects of the
universe and mankind. It is just a matter of time before
deterioration or some type of devastation ends it all. This is the
best that the creator could do. Mankind is most likely completely
on his own.
·
God is a cruel and evil monster:
This god created the universe and Earth, created humans, allowed
them to procreate and sustained the planet for thousands
(millions?) of years. Then he either allows the humans to destroy
his Earth, or he hurls them into the sun, or allows a meteor to
smash into them or any number of other devastating events just for
the sport of it, or who knows why.
·
God is creator and sustainer: This
is the omnipotent God of the Bible, the perfect God who created the
universe and mankind in furtherance of a purpose. This is
the God who is Spirit, the omnipresent, Who has always been, Whom
does not exist within the boundaries of time and space. This is the
God, who after creation, reached down to mankind; infinite God to
finite man, Who walked on the Earth in the form of man. This God,
Who by love, is the Sustainer of the universe and of the Earth.
This Creator does not allow His creatures to be the victims of
complete annihilation by catastrophe or self destruction. If the
Earth expires, it will be in His time and by His will and when His
purpose is complete, and not before He returns to it. This is the
God that science can’t explain and atheists spurn.
There is no
doubt human beings are to be the stewards of their home, the Earth.
And they haven’t been very good stewards. Conservation and
environmental awareness are not new ideas. But from time to time
these ideas are brought to the forefront, usually in a political
arena or the result of a latest scientific discovery, or reaction
to such discovery. Most of the time the new awareness soon
dies off and man goes back to wastefulness and polluting.
Yes we
should care enough about our home that we don’t unnecessarily waste
and pollute. We should also conserve what resources we can. But
while we spend millions of dollars investigating shrinking polar
ice caps or an elusive “hole” in our ozone, we have terrible crises
on Earth that we can grasp some control of; for example
starvation and disease. These are real, human conditions that have
existed for centuries. There is enough food and resources available
on our planet to bring starvation and curable diseases to a halt.
It is appalling to think that while we spend a tremendous amount of
time and capital on attempting to determine and prepare for the
‘fate’ of the planet; millions of people are sick and starving to
death, now. The US has now drastically cut down on the
amount of wheat that is being grown because it is being replaced by
corn crops. The excess corn is being used to produce ethanol, an
alternative fuel for automobiles. But the resulting effect is a
drastic reduction in wheat exportation to countries that have
severe food shortages. So in other words, because of the efforts to
combat global warming, and reduce dependency on foreign oil we are
now burning food, which has contributed to a huge rise in global
food prices.
To imply
that mankind has the power to completely alter the climate of the
planet, or that his future is purely at the mercy of chance, is
completely removing God the Creator and Sustainer from the equation.
At what point have we abandoned our core beliefs? What is the cause
of the agnostic permeation into our present intellectual
culture? With time and the
advent of so much new technology, is our society ‘outgrowing’ its
original beliefs relating to Theism? Can our faith be so easily
supplanted? Have we become such a media controlled society that we
can’t think for ourselves anymore? Some who make the claims of a
deteriorating Earth and certain destruction also profess a faith in
God.
One has to wonder which god that would be.
Steven Walls
|
