Skip to main content

Global Warming and Theology




I'm a member of a facebook group devoted to the discussion of global warming. It was probably a mistake to join, since the discussion is quite jejune.

Here is an example. A poster writes:  "Prove that God is not responsible for global warming."

Really?

Assume theism [of some fairly traditional peoples-of-the-book sort] for the sake of discussion here.

Now abstract a bit and consider ANY statement of the form "why is X happening?" where X  is some observable event in time and space. Either you believe that "God so decreed" is an adequate answer or you don't.

If you do believe that to be an adequate answer, then you have rejected empirical science altogether, because science is all about assigning observable causes to observable effects.

On the other hand, if you do not believe that to be an adequate answer, and you press on for a better one, then you have accepted the scientific enterprise, and the challenge of the form "Prove that God is not responsible for X" is simply meaningless.

Comments

  1. Was the poster making a scientific statement or was he making a normative statement? He might have been saying that, because we cannot prove that God is not responsible for global warming, we should assume that God is responsible for it, and that we humans are not. Therefore, we humans need not change our behavior that scientists falsely claim is causing global warming. Furthermore, we should not attempt to interfere with God's will, but should accept and in fact welcome global warming. The poster's right-wing ideology presumably prevents him from noticing that he should take the same attitude toward all natural disasters.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It wasn't clear which of these readings the poster had in mind. If either. A third possibility, of course, is that the comment was simply a bit of mischief, i.e. trolling.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.



We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…

Hume's Cutlery

David Hume is renowned for two pieces of cutlery, the guillotine and the fork.

Hume's guillotine is the sharp cut he makes between "is" statements and "ought" statements, to make the point that the former never ground the latter.

His "fork" is the division between what later came to be called "analytic" and "synthetic" statements, with the ominous observation that any books containing statements that cannot be assigned to one or the other prong should be burnt.

Actually, I should acknowledge that there is some dispute as to how well or poorly the dichotomy Hume outlines really maps onto the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. Some writers maintain that Hume meant something quite different and has been hijacked. Personally, I've never seen the alleged difference however hard they've worked to point it out to me.

The guillotine makes for a more dramatic graphic than a mere fork, hence the bit of clip art above.

I'm curious whe…