In his 9/11/17 Briefing, Dr. Mohler once again pitted global warming, which he
classes as belonging to “the secular worldview”, against the Christian
worldview. The occasion was a NY Times article about a sense of apocalypse stirred
up by the recent string of natural disasters (hurricanes, wild fires, an
earthquake). It quoted a professor as saying “The fact is it is attractive to
certain segments of the population to look at unforeseen apocalyptic-style
events as fitting into a particular kind of narrative,” mentioning biblical end of times fantasies and secular superstition. Dr. Mohler took issue
with this for being too narrow:
“...every single one of us has to fit the world and our understanding of it ... “into a particular kind of narrative.” For some people, that narrative is climate change and the apocalyptic warning that these storms are evidence of the fact that climate change is not only more real, but much further along in terms of danger than had been previously recognized. Others are pointing to a more explicitly theological issue. But the point is, every single one of us, every intelligent person, has to look at these massive events and fit them into a particular kind of narrative. The question is: What kind of narrative is it? .... End of times fantasies are not merely a part of American religiosity; they are equally and emphatically part of American secularism as well.”
Implicit in Dr. Mohler’s discussion is the idea that you
have to choose between a secular worldview and a Christian one, and
specifically between global warming and Christianity, because global warming is
nothing but a secular substitute for the true biblical end times narrative.
But this idea of two completely opposed worldviews is altogether too simplistic. There is a great deal of overlap between the modern secular worldview and even Dr. Mohler’s very conservative Christian one. Christians do not reject science entirely – only where it conflicts with tenets they believe to be essential to their faith. They don’t reject modern medicine – with the same caveat. When their doctor diagnoses cancer, and prescribes a regimen, they take her seriously. And when weather forecasters predict a hurricane headed their way, they seek shelter, because they trust weather radar, instrument readings, satellite images, and the computer models that incorporate all these data and calculate the probabilities of flooding or high winds in their area. Christians accept these products of modern science – even when they predict a cataclysm – into their worldview without a problem. So why not global warming?
Whether the planet is warming, and if so, at what rate, and due to what cause, and with what physical effects, are not religious questions and they aren’t political questions. To answer them requires measurements and quantitative physical theories. That is, these questions fall into the domain of science.
The world’s scientists have overwhelmingly come to the conclusion that global warming is real, is human caused, and poses a serious threat to humanity’s future – and even current – well-being. They have expressed this through their organizations, like their national academies of science (here is one such statement: www.nap.edu/catalog/18730/climate-change-evidence-and-causes) and through their contributions to the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (see its reports).
But this idea of two completely opposed worldviews is altogether too simplistic. There is a great deal of overlap between the modern secular worldview and even Dr. Mohler’s very conservative Christian one. Christians do not reject science entirely – only where it conflicts with tenets they believe to be essential to their faith. They don’t reject modern medicine – with the same caveat. When their doctor diagnoses cancer, and prescribes a regimen, they take her seriously. And when weather forecasters predict a hurricane headed their way, they seek shelter, because they trust weather radar, instrument readings, satellite images, and the computer models that incorporate all these data and calculate the probabilities of flooding or high winds in their area. Christians accept these products of modern science – even when they predict a cataclysm – into their worldview without a problem. So why not global warming?
Whether the planet is warming, and if so, at what rate, and due to what cause, and with what physical effects, are not religious questions and they aren’t political questions. To answer them requires measurements and quantitative physical theories. That is, these questions fall into the domain of science.
The world’s scientists have overwhelmingly come to the conclusion that global warming is real, is human caused, and poses a serious threat to humanity’s future – and even current – well-being. They have expressed this through their organizations, like their national academies of science (here is one such statement: www.nap.edu/catalog/18730/climate-change-evidence-and-causes) and through their contributions to the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (see its reports).
Why do conservative Christians like Dr. Mohler ignore, denigrate, deny or actively oppose the scientific consensus on global warming? I do not believe it is because of any inherent conflict between Christianity and the science of global warming. My guess is that it is largely a matter of historical accident. This is almost entirely an American phenomenon. The fact of human-caused global warming is not controversial in most of the rest of the world. American political conservatives, for a variety of reasons, have denied the science. (Some reasons: alliance with the coal and oil industries; fear of government regulation that would be needed to solve the problem, if the problem were admitted; opposition to liberals like Al Gore who championed the cause; a well-funded disinformation campaign -- see "Merchants of Doubt", the book and the movie.) American Christian conservatives are aligned with political conservatives, and climate change skepticism just came as part of the package, so to speak -- the people they rub shoulders with don't believe it. No doubt this skepticism came easily to evangelicals because many of them already had an uneasy relationship with science due to the conflict between their young earth creationist beliefs and modern biology, geology and cosmology. They were already practiced in rejecting scientific consensus when this conflicted with their presuppositions. But, as I have said, this has not resulted in a blanket rejection of and alienation from science. So they need not be wedded to climate change denialism forever.
Christians, just imagine for a moment that global warming is not, as Dr. Mohler has often portrayed it, a new age religion or some other poor secularist substitute for Christian truth. Imagine that it is simply the scientifically validated fact that billions of human beings, having adopted a modern, technological way of life, are emitting so much carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere that it is causing the oceans and atmosphere to warm, which in turn is causing glaciers to melt, the oceans to rise, and weather patterns to change in increasingly drastic ways. Imagine that climate scientists are just as competent and honest as your doctor, and they are telling you that you need to change your lifestyle if you want yourself and your progeny to thrive.
Wouldn’t it be tragic if all this were true, but because of your political affiliations and your alienation from the scientific establishment for completely unrelated reasons, you rejected this warning, and consequently failed in your Christian duty of stewardship over creation?
I think it would be. Therefore I plead with Dr. Mohler to stop attacking the world scientific consensus on global warming on religious grounds by calling it “implicit pantheism” or “environmental apocalypticism”. (www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/june/26.46.html) As for calling it “questionable science” (ibid.), of course all science can be questioned. But if you are going to do it, do it seriously: seek the answers from reputable sources, and leave your irrelevant political and religious biases at home. If you have been mistaken up to now, think how much good you could do by changing your position on global warming, and how much harm you could avoid doing.
