I've just been struck by a post on Sam Allberry's blog, which is here if you're interested. But in his final paragraph, he says:
"...Nor is any of this exclusive to Nutritionism. As I thought through these four features, it struck me how true they are of contemporary Environmentalism, the other rising new religion of our day. I can't help feeling captive to the experts. In shrill terms we're told daily of how human carbon emmissions are driving us to the brink of an ecological apocalypse. Recycling and air-travel have become (opposite) moral absolutes. As a Christian, I am far from indifferent to the natural well-being of God's world. And yet I remain mistrustful of a scientific band whose ideology is often secularist and unacknowledged, who confer upon their theories the status of absolute truth, and therefore pillory the rising number of other scientists who do not share their assumptions and who question their findings. I don't like being a cynic, and I don't want to become one of those Christians who forever demonises "those scientists", but sometimes the experts leave us no alternative."
It's a valid point of view, that scientists generally come at a topic from an a-thiestic point of view. Indeed, many a violently anti-religion, and frequently anti-Christianity especially. But this leaves us with a quandry. Do we ignore the claims made by the mass of scientists on the basis that they come from a completely different world-view to Christians, or do we go with them?
This seems to be the root of the question, but it also seems one that has a simple solution. It's about recognising the questions that science as a tool can answer, and those it cannot.
Science is, in its fundamentals, the study of the natural world around us. Indeed, many early scientists called themselves 'natural philosophers,' presumably becuase their thoughts and ponderings were influenced by their observations of nature. (Incidently, I absolutely detest the scientific convention of capitalizing nature or biology, as in "Nature has done this.") Study leads naturally on from observation to hypothesis, from hypothesis to experiment, and from experiment to conclusion or theory.
For example, an observation is that something happens. This leads to the question "why does this happen?" and a guess - "maybe this happens becuase of this." To find out, one alters this and examines the results. Either it has an effect, or it doesn't, and after much hard work, one can draw a conclusion. Eventually, numerous conclusions may lead to a theory, and, once the theory has been tested, and shown to hold true again and again, the word is often changed to 'law.' (Laws are, of course, sometimes proven to be wrong or incomplete, such as the idea of a flat earth, or the assumption that Newtonian mechanics would hold true for sub-atomic particles such as electrons, which instead need quantum mechanics to describe them.)
In a round-and-about way, this leads me to my point. If a scientist tries to answer a question that science itself cannot answer, he is merely postulating, and his science is closer to philosophy or theology. If he tries to answer a question that science can answer, he may be correct or incorrect, but he's entitled to call his opinions 'scientific.'
Which brings us to global warming (or its absence). Firstly, although some scientists believe that the phenomenon does not exist, most believe it does. There is much observational evidence. Doesn't it seem warmer to you than it was this time 15 years ago? Birds which used to migrate seem not to bother any more. Satellite images show that the Arctic ice-sheets are shrinking rapidly. And simple experiments using a thermometer tell us that, on average, the years are hotter than they were.
So why? Here we come on the the hypothesis. The most common guess is that's it due to 'greenhouse gas' emmissions, i.e., the release of gases such as CO2 etc. These allow sunlight to enter the Earth's atmosphere, but the reflected rays are absorbed, like the way a glass roof on a greenhouse makes the inside hotter than the outside. There is evidence to support this hypothesis. Ice cores taken show the temperature and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere for many thousands of years. The two cycle up and down, the temperature following the CO2 level closely, although slightly behind. However, since the 1800s, the CO2 levels, and the temperature, have been shooting up - and show no sign of coming down again any time soon. They're already way past where they usually got to in the 'natural' cycle. None of this is proof that human CO2 release is causing climate change. But it's a correlation without any other obvious cause.
So what should we do? Should we argue that scientists have an axe to grind, so we'll ignore them? After all, they're scientists - they have a vested interest in science. Or should we decide to believe them, after all, they're the people who should know best? And if we decide to ignore them, who shall we believe instead?
I believe global warming is real. I believe it's at least in part caused by human CO2 release. As an evangelical Christian I don't think this is incompatible with my worldview - after all, God made the world, and it was very good. But then came the fall, and the outworkings of that are seen all around us. Is it reasonable to expect that they would be limited to mankind's dealings with each other? As a consequence of Adam's sin, the first death is recorded in the Bible (an animal is killed to make clothes). The pattern of sin and death continues to this day. As custodians of the world, have we really made such a good job of it that this pattern will not reach a logical conclusion?
I must stress, however, that although global warming may well result in catastrophic consequences, I doubt it will signal the end of humanity. Many millions may die, species may become extinct, and whole countries become submerged. But in many ways, that's just an extension, albeit on a massive, horrific scale, of the human story ever since the time of Adam. Should we really be surprised?
So what should we do? Should we ignore it - after all, as rich Westerners we will probably be comparatively unaffected. Or should we try to act to affect it, making sacrifices if need be. Is this analogous (although not equivalent or sufficient) to repentence?
For more information, visit www.eci.ox.ac.uk.
