An Inconvenient Reality
October 18th, 2007
There was a time when winning the Nobel Prize was considered one of the most celebrated achievements in the world. Unfortunately in recent years its regard has diminished greatly as it has become more and more a symbol of extreme humanism. Case in point: Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize for his 2006 documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”. Would someone please tell me how an alarmist film on global warming filled with errors based upon faulty science has facilitated world “peace”? The Nobel committee applauded Gore for his efforts to “build up and disseminate greater knowledge about manmade climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.” Apparently Gore had convinced them that man is in control of his environment and therefore must act before he loses control.
That’s very interesting. This is just the kind of thinking one would expect from an organization that views the world from a Godless perspective. You see the Bible is very clear about our position in the universe. While it is true that man has been given the responsibility for stewardship over God’s creation, the reality is that God, not man, is in control. Unfortunately when a society rejects that inconvenient reality the end result is worship of the environment. This is exactly what Paul describes in Romans chapter one.
“Their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity…..they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and WORSHIPED AND SERVED CREATED THINGS rather than the Creator….” (Romans 1:21-25)
There’s an interesting new book that appeared on the New York Times Best Sellers list recently that I think illustrates this point further. It’s called “The World Without Us - What Earth would be like if humans disappeared” by Alan Weisman. Weisman’s website describes it as showing “how our planet would respond without the relentless pressure of the human presence….what the planet might be like today, if not for us.” The whole idea is to demonstrate “Earth’s tremendous capacity for self-healing”, seemingly as if to say that man is nothing more than a disease or an infection, a blight on the planet. Sounds a bit like a scene from “The Matrix”. It’s like we’re saying that man is somehow at odds with nature, that our very existence is somehow…unnatural. Man must, therefore, be some sort of freak of nature, an accident if you will, certainly not put here by design.
The other thing that I find astounding is the obvious absence of the sustaining hand of God. Apparently the book is meant as some sort of wakeup call to mankind about our wanton destruction of the planet, ignoring the plain truth that we didn’t create it, therefore, we don’t have it within us to destroy it. The Creator of the universe is fully capable of maintaining and caring for the earth until He himself sees fit to put an end to its existence. We live in a Godless society that worships the environment in exactly the way that scriptures said they would.
October 20th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Hey Don
Like the site. BTW it should come as any surprise that someone who is a raging liberal got the Nobel Peace Prize. Look a couple of previous recipeints: Jimmy Carter - Peace? Maybe between Egypt and Isreal, but did everybody forget about Iran?
Gorbechov: Gimme a break. He didn’t have any choice. His country was in shambles because of the moral corruption of Communism. This one should have gone to Ronald Reagan.
October 21st, 2007 at 2:38 am
Jeff,
Thanks for stopping by. Ya, it would seem that the Nobel Prize has become a champion for liberalism.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Don,
You have an attractive site with interesting comments, but I wanted to say,”Wait a minute” when I got to your contribution about Gore and the Nobel Peace prize.
I don’t think it is fair to say concern for the environmental crisis is tantamount to “worshiping the environment or that getting alarmed about human damage to the ecosystems is incompatible with a belief in God’s providence.
Scriptures depict God putting humans in charge of a lot, and as a result making sometimes some monumental messes. God left it up to humans whether they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They did and God is still trying to redeem us from the mess that caused. The first command of God was to tend the world and to shepherd the life here. (As Genesis tells it this originally did not even allow humans the right over eating another animal. The kind of care we were instructed was not exploitation.)
The issue is not whether environmental ethics is politically correct (as you say it is for liberals) or politically incorrect (as it seems to be for some conservatives), concern about damage to the environment is just plain Biblical.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:15 am
David,
You’re exactly right that environmental ethics is Biblical. I agree that it’s not simply a matter of political correctness. Man has been given responsibility to be a good steward of God’s creation. I’m all for that. There’s no argument here.
My problem though is this. First off there’s an overwhelming atheistic mindset that seems to permeate environmentalism today. In order to convince us of the need to save the planet, we’re told that unless we dramatically change our lifestyles we will face global destruction. I simply disagree. I don’t believe God will allow that to happen until He’s good and ready. And when He is ready to destroy the world (and the scripture says He will) there’s not a thing in the world that you nor I can do to stop it.
Secondly, I think it’s utterly shameful the way environmentalists get a pass when it comes to the truth. Apparently it’s okay to cite error and use faulty science in order to scare people into conserving planetary resources. That’s what I mean by an inconvenient reality. You want to talk environmental ethics? Good, let’s talk. But let’s at least have the decency to do it truthfully using factual and provable information without fear mongering. That’s all I’m asking.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:09 am
Don,
Well we agree about some things, but I guess I still am not comfortable with the way you put two issues here. So here are my quibbles for what they are worth.
I have heard some scientists express reservations that some findings have been overstated. But there is a broad consensus among scientists that climate change is happening and that the industrial revolution is a big part of that. How reversible the consequences is more debated. The science that shows we are in growing danger is
“there’s an overwhelming atheistic mindset that seems to permeate environmentalism today.”
Yes, there are atheist scientists, God bless them, who think it is scientific not to believe in God! I don’t know that I could say it was “overwhelming.” Many scientists recognize that religion and science are not at odds, and not a few have become open to faith through contemplating their science.
The second issue is about the will of God, particularly whether God would allow us to do our environment in. I don’t know if we can say he wouldn’t. What if we brought life on earth to a premature end? God permits humans to do to themselves and to each other things that are not what God wants to happen. God wills our freedom, along with desiring that we will use that freedom in ways that will be good. God doesn’t it take freedom away just because it looks we will misuse it. But that means I cannot say that if someone shoots themselves or someone else (and God allows it to happen) that, “Oh well, God must have wanted him to commit suicide.” or “They will surely will not die before God wants them to.”
The way God created the world, how the story unfolds is not totally predetermined but leaves room for what we do with the freedom God chose to give us. There is room for real tragedy in this world.
God will redeem and save. I believe there will be a new heaven and a new earth. But how big the messes we make with this one is in part on our shoulders and God will hold us accountable. God forgives but we should not sin the more in order to give him more to forgive. ( Romans 6)
January 7th, 2008 at 7:04 am
David,
Do you mean to say then that the creator of the universe is somehow incapable of preserving and sustaining His creation? Is that what you believe? Here’s what scripture has to say:
Nehemiah 9:6 “You alone are the LORD; You have made heaven, The heaven of heavens, with all their host, The earth and everything on it, The seas and all that is in them, And You preserve them all. The host of heaven worships You.”
Psalm 103:19 The LORD has established His throne in heaven, And His kingdom rules over all.”
Colossians 1:17 “And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.”
Acts 17:28 “for in Him we live and move and have our being…”
Ephesians 1:11 “In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will.”
The Bible teaches that God is sovereign, possessing absolute authority over the universe to do whatever He wills. Nothing occurs or exists apart from His will and power. God may have rested on the seventh day after completing His creation, nonetheless, He continues to uphold the universe and all that is in it. I simply cannot believe that finite man has it within his capability to thwart God’s authority when it comes to maintaining His creation. I think you’ll be hard pressed to defend such an argument form scripture.
As for the broad consensus among scientists, while it may be undeniable that climate change is happening, what’s not so clear is the cause. The fact of the matter is that there simply aren’t enough facts to make a clear determination. Scientists can’t realistically say with any degree of certainty what’s causing it or if it’s even permanent. There simply isn’t enough reliable data. That said it is grossly irresponsible for anyone to draw any kind of credible conclusion from such limited information. And let’s be clear. There are at least as many members of the scientific community who do not necessarily agree that the industrial revolution is a big part of climate change. Despite what Mr. Gore may tell you, it simply is not a given.