© 2015 The Wired Word
www.thewiredword.com
Beginning this past week, negotiators from 195 countries have gathered in
Paris for the United Nations' Convention on Climate Change, working to reach a
deal aimed at reducing worldwide carbon emissions with the hope of limiting
global warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).
The gathering is known as COP21 since it is the 21st annual Conference of
the Parties (COP) on the U.N.'s annual forum on climate change. Leaders from
147 nations have or will address the meeting.
This international meeting is occurring in a different sort of
"climate," one where Americans are divided -- though not equally --
on the cause of global warming and, in some cases, whether global warming is
actually occurring.
According to a phone survey of 1,030 adults nationwide conducted on behalf
of The New York Times andCBS News, "A majority of
Americans -- 53 percent -- think global warming is caused mostly by human
activity, while fewer -- 31 percent -- think global warming is caused mostly by
natural patterns in the earth's environment. Just 9 percent don't think global
warming exists at all. Belief that global warming is caused by human activity
has risen 11 points since 2011," says a CBS News report on the
poll.
The survey also indicates that political leaning may have some bearing on
how the respondents answered. The poll found that 72 percent of Democrats, 52
percent of independents and 32 percent of Republicans believe that human
activity is the culprit in global warming. The percentages are approximately
the same when respondents were asked whether global warming is having a serious
impact at present.
While global warming and causes thereof are reportedly supported by ample
scientific evidence and a majority of professional climate scientists, there
are known to be scientists, including climatologists, who dissent from that
interpretation based upon their analysis of the data. Others disagree based on
records of long-term global climate trends and for other reasons, some of which
are scientific. Both proponents and opponents bring their own worldviews,
ideology and theology to the subject, which no doubt provide their own
influences.
To make things more confusing, there are those on both sides of the issue
who think that warming could be a good thing for the world.
Finally, attempts on the one hand to stifle opposition voices and on the
other hand to ridicule proponents of the main narrative deepen for most of us
the problem of perceiving the reality of the situation.
A poll earlier this year, conducted by Gallup, found that about 32 percent
of Americans overall are worried about global warming, which is no higher a
percentage than when Gallup first asked about it in 1989. Gallup also found
that when it comes to environmental worries, more Americans think water and air
pollution are greater concerns than global warming.
More on this story can be found at these links:
Applying the News Story
There is sometimes a difference between the conclusions we draw from a set
of facts and the conclusions others draw from the same set of facts. But when
it comes to matters of global proportions, few of us are in a position to
determine the implication of the facts solely by ourselves. In those cases, it
often comes down to what or whom we consider reliable interpreters of those
facts, which can include science, respected individuals, ideology, personal
values, history, understandings about God and even majority opinion.
As stated in the introduction to this lesson, in technical terms, we are
talking about epistemology, which is typically defined as "the
investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion." And
the fact is that neither gullibility nor hyper-skepticism makes us better
followers of Jesus.
The Big Questions
1. In matters of global importance, such as climate change, on what groups
of people or fields of inquiry do you rely for determining the meaning
of the facts? Do you rely mainly on a single source of information or do you
read/watch/listen to several competing sources of information? Why?
2. Regarding such matters, in what ways can skepticism help us? In what ways
is it detrimental?
3. For his satirical TV show, The Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert
coined the word "truthiness" to mean the means by which a person
claims to know something instinctively or "from the gut" without
regard to facts. Where do you see "truthiness" at work in society
today? What are its dangers? When has your gut feeling helped you? When has it
betrayed you?
4. Do you find it easier to believe conclusions which cannot be proven
beyond all doubt when they are supported by people who have values similar to
yours? What are the pros and cons of such an approach?
5. Are we always better off to know the implications of circumstances that
affect us? If yes, why? If no, give an example of when it is better not to
know.
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
John 9:16
Some of the Pharisees said, "This man is not from God, for he does not
observe the sabbath." But others said, "How can a man who is a sinner
perform such signs?" And they were divided. (For context, read
9:13-17.)
This is from the account of Jesus giving sight to the man who had been born
blind. The healing causes the Pharisees to divide in their opinion about Jesus,
as the verse above shows. Both conclusions -- 1) that Jesus "is not from
God" and 2) that perhaps he is not a sinner because he is able to
"perform such signs" -- are based on the same set of facts: that the
blind man can now see and Jesus was the channel through whom the man's eyes
were healed.
It's not that those holding the first opinion are evil and those holding the
second opinion are good. Rather it is that something in their mindset,
worldview, biases and reasoning process brought them out at different
conclusions from the same set of facts.
Questions: What might it mean to invite Christ into your
mindset, worldview, biases and reasoning process? How do you transcend the
viewpoint you've developed as a member of a club, church, profession, state,
political party or nation to get to the truth?
Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not rely on your own insight.
(No context necessary.)
Many Christians have no trouble with being told to trust God, as the first
part of the verse above does, but the second part bothers some. We tend to
think quite a bit of our own insight. We value our ability to think. So we may
not like being told not to rely on our own insight.
But when read as one piece, the verse can be understood to say, "Don't
rely on your own insight in place of trusting God." It is not telling us
not to think, but it is telling us start with trusting God.
Questions: If God is the source of all truth, how might
trusting him affect our ability to determine the meaning of climate change?
Which tools for biblical interpretation provide you guidance in understanding
the word of the Lord about subjects that may not be directly addressed by
scripture?
John 8:31-32
Then Jesus said …, "If you continue in my word, you are truly my
disciples; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
(For context, read 8:31-38.)
With these words, Jesus ties following him to truth, and that makes it
important for Christians to care about truth. Clear thinking happens best when
we have truth as the basis.
The truth Jesus was speaking about here was the truth of the gospel, the
truth of his word. But caring about the truth should also apply to the accuracy
of information we work with in forming opinions.
Questions: What degree of certainty is necessary when the
information at hand seems to demand prompt action for the good of all? How do
we reach beyond bias in determining what to believe and whether to act? How do
official denominational or congregational stances on climate change affect your
thinking about that matter?
Matthew 16:2-3
[Jesus] answered them, "When it is evening, you say, 'It will be fair
weather, for the sky is red.' And in the morning, 'It will be stormy today, for
the sky is red and threatening.' You know how to interpret the appearance of
the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. (For context,
read 16:1-4.)
Jesus is here responding to some Pharisees and Sadducees who have asked him
for "a sign from heaven" (v. 1), some event to authenticate his
message. His answer is that the Jewish leaders know how to interpret the sky
regarding upcoming weather, but not the only sign that will be given them, by
which he probably meant his death and resurrection. They fail to interpret
"the signs of the times," Jesus himself.
This lack of ability to interpret the sign that was Jesus himself was not a
matter of intellectual acumen, but a matter of faith. In this case, these
leaders didn't have the faith, which probably explains why, in verse 4, Jesus
broke off the conversation and "left them."
Obviously, because Jesus was talking about himself as the sign of the times,
these verses do not directly apply to reading the signs of climate change.
Nonetheless, there is the suggestion here that misreading those signs can have
unwelcome consequences.
Regarding reading the signs of our times, TWW team member Liz Antonson
comments, "The world, including the Christian community, is going about
the business of life, the activities of life, with a strange detachment from
the erosion of moral and spiritual values and practices, as well as the
erosion/destruction of the physical world." She also suggests that these
verses are a good way to address the similarities between Jesus' times and ours
"of decadence, nonchalance and non-Kingdom of God quests."
Questions: What prior decisions might have affected the
ability of these leaders in Jesus' day to interpret the signs of their times
correctly? What do you interpret as "signs of the times"? What do you
think the signs of the times are pointing to? What part do natural phenomena
and global weather trends play in your understanding of who God is and what he
expects of you?
Malachi 3:2-3
But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he
appears? For he is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap; he will sit as
a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the descendants of Levi
and refine them like gold and silver, until they present offerings to the LORD
in righteousness. (For context, read 3:1-4.)
These verses speak of the refining fire used for metallurgy as a way of
revealing the precious metal in us.
Question: What refining fire -- skepticism, research,
prayer, etc. -- do you use to determine the truth of matters of global concern?
For Further Discussion
1. Respond to this, from TWW team member Mary Sells: "I find it
somewhat ludicrous that we see and accept in some ways our role and the
outcomes of our bad behavior that corrupts God's perfect creation of us, such
as cancers caused by chemical exposure or genetic modifications to foods, oil
spills that kill sea life and alter the balance of that ecosystem, nuclear
power plant incidents that cause death, mutation and illnesses -- and yet, when
we consider global warming and rising seas, we have this we say/they say
dialogue as if it is opinion on whether our bad treatment of the environment is
without consequence. Where indeed is the truth?
2. In the Bible, weather events are often interpreted as the direct activity
of God (see, for example, 1 Samuel 12:16-18). Do you understand long-term
climate change to be the activity of God, the result of human activity, neither
or both? Why?
3. One TWW consultant offers an opposing view to the main narrative about
global warming. He was careful to tell us that since he works for a Department
of Energy lab, this represents his own views and not those of the Department of
Energy or of Sandia Corporation or Sandia National Labs. TWW's quoting of his
views are to promote discussion and imply neither support of nor opposition to
them. Our consultant writes:
"I am a physicist; my main work is in computer
simulation and atmospheric propagation. My experience relates to the warming
controversy since 1) the 'greenhouse effect' is a result of atmospheric
propagation, and 2) computer climate models are the main tool kit of
anthropogenic global warming (AGW) contentions. I first became aware of AGW
theories about 25 years ago, and found them interesting, since they were at
odds with the 'oncoming ice age' fears then in vogue. Of special interest, they
made relatively short-time period predictions, which meant they could be
checked.
"Long story short: The predictions didn't pan out.
Almost all failed: The temperatures didn't warm, the Arctic and Antarctic ice
caps didn't melt (in some cases, they expanded), hurricane and storm activity
didn't increase (we're actually in a lull), etc. Contrary evidence and
explanations were derided with straw men or /ad hominem/s. In addition, power
struggles arose, with people being forced to support the theory or harm their
jobs or careers. That's not science. Even worse, data tampering began to occur,
always disguised as 'corrections,' but also always designed to make the values
conform better to AGW theory. Finally, politicians and bureaucrats took charge:
to their own benefit, of course, but real science fell by the wayside."
4. The following offerings concern the question of how one can discern what
is actually happening:
a. Author Milan Kundera, in his acclaimed novel Immortality, notes
that his grandmother, who lived in a small village, couldn't be deceived by
propaganda or false news reports: No one could tell her that agriculture was thriving
when she could see starving people every day. On the other hand, the city
dweller could be told almost anything about general conditions and would
believe it, since those conditions were outside his immediate experience. Most
of us, in most cases, are more like the city dweller: We don't have immediate
access to information, and are dependent upon data -- or, more often,
conclusions -- given us be intermediaries. How do you check the views and
conclusions you are presented? How can you? How much of your time should be
devoted to doing so? If you don't double-check, are your own opinions valid?
b. "When the newspaper reports on something I know about, I find it
often is wildly inaccurate. I'm just glad that it's accurate when reporting on
things I don't know about." Variations on this quip have been attributed
to many, but the irony is without dispute. How accurate have you found news
reports to be when on an event or topic you are familiar with? How does that
compare your belief to the accuracy of reporters in areas you are not familiar
with?
c. The police blotter effect. By selecting which stories to report, a false
impression of dangers can be created. For example, although violent crimes have
declined steadily for the past 20 years, many people believe that violent crime
is at an all-time high. What can you do to help yourself and others have a more
accurate view?
Responding to the News
This is a good time to consider whether our arguments about the meaning of
climate change are based on good science, faulty science or something else.
This is also a good time to ask God to help us interpret, as clearly and
without bias as we can, the signs of our times.
Closing Prayer
Help us, O Lord, to be good stewards of the earth, and read correctly the
signs of our times. In Jesus' name. Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment