Why are so many conservative Christians (and no, that’s not the only sort there are) active deniers of man-made climate change? After all, the lifestyle changes that we’re encouraged to adopt to try to abate the worse effects of our impending climate crisis are things that Christians should be in favour of. They help the planet, they help the world’s poor, and they help our own discipleship.
One hot potato.
Thinking about this question recently – and becoming increasingly frustrated by it – I came up with this hypothesis:
A) Climate change [we'll assume we're talking about man-made CC from now on] is a “science” thing.
B) Many conservative Christians buy into the false dichotomy that science and religion are two opposing or contesting ways of explaining the world (in fact, they are complementary, except when science becomes muddied by ideological atheism).
C) Climate change belongs to a special subcategory of science things, “huge, one-off, word-changing science things that cannot be tested in a laboratory”.
D) One of the few other science things in that category is evolution. (Many/most/lots of – it’s debatable) conservative Christians do not believe in evolution.
QED: conservative Christians are at least ill-disposed towards accepting the truth of man-made climate change.
A bit too facile to be correct? Maybe, but I love it when a good hypothesis starts amassing some supporting evidence, don’t you?
Earlier this week, when a discussion of government policy on a friend’s Facebook page inevitably turned to climate change, “Kellie” (not her real name) posted the following (if reading the entire comment is too much skip to the sentence I’ve highlighted red):
I confess that it is not at all obvious to me that climate change is human-induced. Did God not tell Job that he makes the rule for the wind and the rain? Has he not promised that so long as the earth shall endure, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease? So why should we so readily believe scientists when they tell us that human carbon dioxide emissions are actually controlling the wind and the rain? Or that the earth is soon going to be too hot to sustain life? Mainstream science is based on an evolutionary understanding of our planet, and that, in itself, should be enough for any Christian to at least question the conclusions and predictions we are being presented with in the climate change debate.
Some of the questions that burn in my mind: Why would God have created us to breathe out carbon dioxide if it is indeed a pollutant, as many scientists suggest? Why would a ‘pollutant’ be so beneficial to the abundant plant life with which God endowed the earth? Why would God have given us such a wealth of coal if it were not to be used for our benefit? Are we not, in effect, throwing this gift back in God’s face right now? Are we not in danger of being like the servant who buried his talent for fear of losing it when we shrink from using the wonderful resources God has given us for our benefit? Why do we ignore all the scientific evidence that is contrary to theories of man-made climate change?
Our world is deteriorating – the Bible tells us it is groaning under the weight of sin. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions is not going to change that. We certainly have been given a huge responsibility in caring for this wonderful planet, but for my part, I find the suggestion that human activity can influence global weather patterns anti-biblical, and the science against man-made climate change very compelling.
I’m not going to pick holes in “Kellie’s” theology here. (Well, just a little one: see para 3. If human’s can’t influence the fate of our planet in a negative way, and thus cause climate change, then why has God asked us to care for the planet – surely our positive efforts will be equally futile?) But I’m fascinated to find here the assumption that science is suspect because it “is based on an evolutionary understanding of our planet”. Strangely, this suspicion does not apply to “science” when supporting the climate sceptics’/deniers’ cause…
I also had my attention drawn to a recent comment on Crikey blog The Pollbludger. “Dave” writes:
I spend quite a bit of time driving as part of my job, so I occasionally succumb to listening to the “shock jock” brigade on [Sydney radio stations] 2GB & 2UE…
I do notice of late a new intrusion into the debate along the lines of “God is in control, he will not permit global warming, did not create the world that way, etc., etc.” Is the Hillsong Church marshalling to assist it’s Lib allies in NSW?…
“Dave” may be drawing too long a bow to incriminate Hillsong here. I certainly couldn’t find any instructions from Bobbie and Brian Houston to their followers to deny climate change on their website. However, a conservative Christian leader of a different stripe – Cardinal George Pell – has in the past made no secret of his climate scepticism, with comments like this:
Some of the hysteric and extreme claims about global warming are also a symptom of pagan emptiness, of Western fear when confronted by the immense and basically uncontrollable forces of nature. Belief in a benign God who is master of the universe has a steadying psychological effect, although it is no guarantee of Utopia, no guarantee that the continuing climate and geographic changes will be benign. In the past pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel gods. Today they demand a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.
While I have no idea where Pell stands on evolution, certainly his reference to “a benign God who is master of the universe” is a reference, for those who have ears, with distinct creation theology (if not creation-ist) overtones…
All this bears further investigation. Especially when that there is a symposium on climate change and religion coming up in Melbourne in October. I certainly won’t have the time or capacity to work up any research myself, but drafting the questions that need to be answered and refining the hypothesis could well be done in time. Would love to hear any thoughts and opinions.
PS It turns out I’m not the only one thinking along these lines. There is also some good stuff in this issue of Sojourners magazine for people wanting ammunition against sceptics of various religious flavours – or none.
I think we make it complicated.
What goes up – must come down!!
If we insist on burning coal, petrol, diesel, will cane … we will be putting stuff in the atmosphere. Much of this acts as a heat blanket for the planet. It stays there for quite some time.
It is not the only cause of climate change, however as a species post the industrial revolution we have found the ability to put more stuff (a lot of it carbon based) in the atmosphere.
We are making a significant and negative contribution, and the privilege of having this wonderful world to live in the the commensurate responsibility to care for the environment that it may yet care for generations yet unborn.
The traditions of the Children of Abraham, Jews, Moslems, Samaritans, Christians and others understand something of a dominion over creation. This is not fundamentally different the the environmental speak of today. It is a repeated theme in most traditions, including the ancient people who walked about in the land (Australia).
Care for the environment is not an option, it is a requirement. We have crapped in the nest – we need to clean it up.
Sally,
are you aware of Waleed Aly’s Quarterly Essay on Conservativism? I think he says things that apply to Christians.
No, but I’ll chase it up. Thanks Chelle!
There’s also another (I think major) factor to consider.
Almost all Christians happily accept the moral neutrality of science as it occurs in the present. For example, I’m not aware of any Christians who think computers, telephones, TVs, electricity, cars, rockets and all the other applied science in our lives have any morality – either good or bad. In fact, I would argue that conservative Christians are less likely to argue that things like nuclear weapons are morally bad.
But evolution and climate change don’t occur in the present. They occur in God’s time – in the primeval past when we are asked to take God on trust about how/why the universe began, or in the apocalyptic future when we believe God will bring history to an end. This means that evolutionary science and climate science are both seen as having moral value – a value which is easy to see as opposed to God who holds the universe in his hands.
I would argue that there is another factor which accentuates this moral conflict. The common Christian expectation is that there will be an “increase of evil” prior to the apocalyptic end of history (see e.g. Matthew 24:12). When climate science argues that we must all (including Christians) reduce our pollution of the atmosphere to avoid destroying the earth, this is heard as saying that Christians are no better than everyone else, and are also part of this “increase of evil”. This is anathema to Christians who [like to] believe that they are somehow “good”.
Bryce.
Thanks Bryce. I agree with your comment on evolution: most of the big stuff (like monkeys > people) happened aeons ago, although obviously it’s is still going on… But is climate change really a future event? The consequences can already be felt, especially in poor and vulnerable nations. And, while eschatology is always the elephant in the room, I’m not sure I agree with your take on it here. Surely if climate change is part of God’s judgement, conservatives would be more open to it being real (tho less keen to intervene to fix it).
I certainly agree that the climate is changing now, although this would also be a contentious issue (“The climate is actually cooling” anyone?) Not to mention all the people who admit that the climate is indeed changing, but say that it always has, and avoid human responsibility by blaming something else. But the “end” of climate change (an earth too hot to support human life as we know it) is definitely apocalyptic. Therefore, it’s a case of science attempting to explain something in God’s (future) preserve.
Conservatives are not reluctant to act against climate change just because it’s part of God’s judgement. They’re reluctant to act against it because they don’t like being called sinners!
I have noticed that some of the worst drivers on the planet are found outside churches on a sunday. I suspect that these people might well subscribe to the theory that God will save em from an accident. Got news for them. God gave em self will so that when they stuffed up he could have a good laugh. Or at least let them reap the fate they deserved. Thats why churches have road deaths amongst their congregations. It could be why planets die.
An interesting take, Percrime. You should stop at church sometime instead of just driving past! Most Christians I know are not that silly when it comes to God saving them from everyday dangers, yet I suspect there could be a double standard at work when it comes to global catastrophe.