How do YEC's regard global warming?

[Maccie]

How do you YEC's regard the statement of NASA scientists that the planet is warmer now than it has been for the last 12,000 years?

Do you believe the planet is warmer now than, say, 6,000 years ago, seeing you don't believe in an old earth?

Do you believe scientists when they say that the speed of warming is due to human activity and carbon emissions?

Are you doing anything about it?

And do you think that global warming, loss of habitat, etc. would result in the evolution of different species? Eventually, of course, over a very long period!

I chose the NASA statement because they are Americans, and you might be more disposed to believe your own countrymen. But there are plenty of other scientists across the world saying the same thing!

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Why should YECism have any logical effect on beliefs about global warming?

i think that the case could be better made if you ask about eschatological beliefs and global warming. The reason is that global warming is on one level an argument about the future, what is likely to happen given the changing conditions we can observe or think about happening now. and eschatology is the religious label for future events.

There is probably a correlation between YECism and eschatological principles if YECism is a religious and social grouping based on membership in certain kinds of churches, then you can show a correlation between the groups and their support of YECism and say premill or dispensationalist theology. But the situation would not be YECism implies some particular stand on global warming but rather dispensationalism is likely to produce YECists as well as dispensationalism is likely to produce premills and premills are less likely to be concerned about the secular future than the average person.

The other possibility is that the political sphere has politicized the issue of global warming, so that the more likely your are an american conservative or republican the more likely you are to dismiss the warnings of warming and if you are YEC the more likely you are to be conservative and a republican if you are an american.

 

[laptoppop]

Once again, I find myself agreeing with RMWilliamsII. One thing that might impact your view on global warming could be the thought of a globe that is only a few thousand years old versus a lot longer -- less time in a state of equilibrium -- more punctuated by catastrophic events.

 

[Deamiter]

Why should YECism have any logical effect on beliefs about global warming?

i think that the case could be better made if you ask about eschatological beliefs and global warming. The reason is that global warming is on one level an argument about the future, what is likely to happen given the changing conditions we can observe or think about happening now. and eschatology is the religious label for future events.

There is probably a correlation between YECism and eschatological principles if YECism is a religious and social grouping based on membership in certain kinds of churches, then you can show a correlation between the groups and their support of YECism and say premill or dispensationalist theology. But the situation would not be YECism implies some particular stand on global warming but rather dispensationalism is likely to produce YECists as well as dispensationalism is likely to produce premills and premills are less likely to be concerned about the secular future than the average person.

The other possibility is that the political sphere has politicized the issue of global warming, so that the more likely your are an american conservative or republican the more likely you are to dismiss the warnings of warming and if you are YEC the more likely you are to be conservative and a republican if you are an american.

Well said. Any correlation (and I fully agree that such a correlation exists) is the result of the politicizing of American religious beliefs. There is no significant DIRECT influence of one's views on global warming by their views on origins.

While you'll often find pastors claim that one political view is the Christian (TM) view, and that one theological view is the Christian (TM) view, you rarely find pastors that claim a particular scientific view BASED on a theological view.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Well said. Any correlation (and I fully agree that such a correlation exists) is the result of the politicizing of American religious beliefs. There is no significant DIRECT influence of one's views on global warming by their views on origins.

While you'll often find pastors claim that one political view is the Christian (TM) view, and that one theological view is the Christian (TM) view, you rarely find pastors that claim a particular scientific view BASED on a theological view.

i appreciate this viewpoint. the more i look closely at a few things i realize that their driving forces are often personality types or basic ways of seeing the world. it is this fundamental type that seems to drive things, not the theology, which seems more to attract a particular person than to be a driving force.

it is the old illustration.
you show a correlation of B to C and jump conclusions and say B->C (B implies C) when in fact the situation is that A->B and A->C so B and C are often found in concert together.

 

[laptoppop]

A classic example is that the amount of skin cancer has gone up even as the amount of sunscreen usage has gone up. Therefore sunscreen causes skin cancer.

If it is personality type... which one is correct?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

A classic example is that the amount of skin cancer has gone up even as the amount of sunscreen usage has gone up. Therefore sunscreen causes skin cancer.

If it is personality type... which one is correct?

and you put your finger on the issue.

if gravitation towards, say particular theologies, is in part a sympathetic "vibration" within the person because they see the world in a fundamental way that agrees with this theology, then the issue is not about the truth of the theology as much as looking at the personality and understanding why certain things cause this vibration.

for example, to be more specific, there is a lot of research into two different kinds of personalities. One sees the father as a strict ruler and the other sees the father as a best friend. These basic types have been discussed in relationship to Christian theology for over a hundred years, with some useful ideas emerging from the studies.

the problem is that truth/false and right/wrong aren't very good categories for looking at personality types, but are much more applicable to looking at the theologies or the ideas within them.

does that make a bit of sense?

 

[laptoppop]

Something that gets even more fun is that there is a positive richness to the variety in personalities. Often, we find great things in appreciating other people's perceptions and viewpoints. My wife and I are total opposites in many ways. I often joke that between the two of us we make one well balanced person. (She's a great artist, I'm a geek)

Unfortunately, in some contexts, there is a true answer apart from anyone. Our personalities may help us or hinder us to get to that answer. In spiritual cases, I see the Holy Spirit helping us to gain insight beyond the limitations of our personality. Certainly I want to grow and change into more and more of what the Lord wants me to be.

In the case of global warming, there is not necessarily as much of a right or wrong answer. On one hand you have panic - its going to burn up in 10 years. On the other hand you have - relax, man isn't big enough to do ANYTHING, its normal variation. In the continuum in the middle, I think we can find common ground of being good stewards and caretakers of this earth.

 

[shernren]

Why should YECism have any logical effect on beliefs about global warming?

Because YECism denies that the earth has existed for anything more than 6,000 years max, whereas the evidence for global warming often cites evidence going back hundreds of thousands of years. For example:

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.png

To a creationist, only the leftmost 0.1% of this chart accurately describes anything, the rest of it is a figment of atheistic evolutionary long-age assumptions, so why is there any evidence for a correlation between global temperature and greenhouse gases? Without this kind of long-term data on the Earth's climactic history it is all too easy to claim that correlation is not causation and it's all a load of nonsense perpetrated by scientists, most of whom are deluded evolutionists anyway.

 

[Assyrian]

Is there a tendency not to feel any responsibility for the planet because the earth is already ruined by the curse?

 

[random_guy]

Weird, I always assumed that YECists would also deny Global Warming. The only reason why I think that is because Republicans have taken a stance against Global Warming (as well as evolution) now that the Republican party has been hijacked by the Evangelical Christians.

 

[Maccie]

Republicans have taken a stance against Global Warming

Do you mean global warming is political in the US??? And you mean Republicans deny its happening?

So if the Democrats win then global warming is back on the agenda??

God help America indeed!

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Do you mean global warming is political in the US??? And you mean Republicans deny its happening?

So if the Democrats win then global warming is back on the agenda??

God help America indeed!

it is very politicized, the White House has ordered scientific reports held up from public disclosure until the strong statements that global warming is occurring have been modified, people have been fired for speaking out, and good old boy Rush has talked about it, with half a brain, for more than a decade.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Weird, I always assumed that YECists would also deny Global Warming. The only reason why I think that is because Republicans have taken a stance against Global Warming (as well as evolution) now that the Republican party has been hijacked by the Evangelical Christians.

No, I think that opposition is more a short sighted business decision.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Is there a tendency not to feel any responsibility for the planet because the earth is already ruined by the curse?

I dunno, but many Evangelicals take stewardship of the Earth very seriously.

Ex-Sec'y Watt did not speak for everybody by any means.

 

[Deamiter]

I dunno, but many Evangelicals take stewardship of the Earth very seriously.

Ex-Sec'y Watt did not speak for everybody by any means.

I've just never heard anybody BUT Republican Evangelicals make the point that since God is coming back soon, it doesn't matter WHAT we do to the Earth. After all, aren't people and their comfort (read: wealth) worth more than a few species of lowly animals?

Not to say that all Evangelicals think this by any means! But there's something scary about people who so completely form theological opinions based on political views.

 

[laptoppop]

I've just never heard anybody BUT Republican Evangelicals make the point that since God is coming back soon, it doesn't matter WHAT we do to the Earth. After all, aren't people and their comfort (read: wealth) worth more than a few species of lowly animals?

Not to say that all Evangelicals think this by any means! But there's something scary about people who so completely form theological opinions based on political views.

Actually, I am a "Republican Evangelical" and I associate with a ton of them -- and I've never heard anyone say "it doesn't matter what we do to the earth". Yes, lots of us believe Jesus is coming back soon -- but we also believe that we are to live both with that expectation, and to keep our oil ready and wicks trimmed as if He won't come back for a long time. The timing is His, not ours.

 

[Deamiter]

Actually, I am a "Republican Evangelical" and I associate with a ton of them -- and I've never heard anyone say "it doesn't matter what we do to the earth". Yes, lots of us believe Jesus is coming back soon -- but we also believe that we are to live both with that expectation, and to keep our oil ready and wicks trimmed as if He won't come back for a long time. The timing is His, not ours.

I do apologize, I was imprecise. I don't think anybody thinks a nuclear holocaust would be okay. What I HAVE heard from the evangelicals is that it doesn't matter if rainforests are destroyed along with millions of species. I've heard that since humans are more important than ____ endangered species, who really cares if we wipe them out?

I fully admit I've never heard the words, "we don't care what happens" but there's a strong message that our first-world comfort is much more important than the world and unique (and often extremely fragile) ecosystems to which we've been entrusted. I've also heard that these things don't matter BECAUSE Jesus is coming back soon, and when he does, we'll have a new Earth anyway.

Note also that I did not claim ALL Republican Evangelicals think this way. And quite frankly, it's not something I hear often -- generally only when I'm in a heated discussion about our environment. I fully admit, it's probably not a view many people consciously subscribe to, but the underlying idea that not only are humans more important, but human COMFORT is more important than our environment is frankly a bit disturbing to a guy like me who tries to follow this truth of Genesis -- that we have been assigned as caretakers to this world that God's given us.