The Climate Change Argument for the Existence of God

Hi Blog fans,

I intend this to be the first in a number of blogs to come out in quick succession, so no Hawaii photos yet, stay tuned for those!

This one will be provocative - so turn away now if you have a nervous disposition.

It is written with my most vocal audience (IFO and Stevie G) in mind, though may be of interest to any number of you I have annoyed in the past by telling you you aren't an Atheist.

Being a theologian is a thoroughly annoying business; as religion is the one of those things that nobody actually believes it is possible to be an expert in. So you can study for years, but ultimately most people will inately believe that their opinion is equally valid as yours even if they have never thought about the subject before.

Which, in a sense, it is.

Belief is a personal thing, and everyone has a right to believe what they want. This stretches to other disciplines too. A brain surgeon will be an expert in their field, but if you believe you don't want them poking around inside your head, then your belief trumps their knowledge.

However, you don't get to set the framework of the conversation. If they tell you the CAT scan shows an enlarged medulla oblongata you don't get to tell them that it is your hippocampus.

Here is where the difference lies in discussions about religion - everyone thinks they can set the framework of the conversation where religion is concerned. And this is entirely unhelpful in deciding the thing of larger importance - what they believe.

Hence I always try to find out more when someone tells me they are an Atheist, because most often they are an Agnostic - seeing religion as something that falls outside what can be known.

Importantly, this does not make them fluffy-minded fence-sitters. Evidence for this comes from a recent article about the global atheist convention, which was written by an Atheist. She noted;

Even atheist poster boy Richard Dawkins, on a scale of 1 (believes in god) to 7 (atheist) describes himself as a 6.9. "

That seems odd doesn't it? From someone who can write about the God Delusion. But, you see, Dawkins can't call himself an Atheist, because his criticism of belief in God comes from scientific method - and you cannot scientifically disprove the existence of God (any more than you can prove it) so to state that God does not exist would be to hold a belief unsubstantiated by the scientific method, and therefore have no stronger foundation than the believers themselves. That's why there aren't that many true atheists - the global conference only had 2500 attendees, which is about as many as the North Dakota Florists associations annual jolly in Vegas.

So, anyone who claims that their world-view is based in scientific method can only be a form of Agnostic, and state that we don't know for certain. This can be strong agnosticism - combined with belief that religious behaviour is detrimental to human advancement, evil makes the existence of a good God unlikely etc., but it is still agnosticism.

When framed in these terms, I can actually get onboard with a form of agnosticism myself. I think it is clear that we can't prove the existence or non-existence of God through scientific method. But I am a strong agnostic in the other direction, combining my knowledge that we can't scientifically know, with belief that other elements combine to allow faith in the existence of God - faith, of course, implying probability of various levels.

However, in a world (seemingly) won over by the scientific method, most Agnostics simply dismiss religious belief - "we can't know so why should we care" could be the mantra. Even those who might seem like strong agnostics in the pub rarely go the lengths of doing anything to bring down religion - so they too fit in here, as what I will call the Inert Agnostic.

Those of you who have got this far will be thinking; What has all this got to do with Climate Change?

Well, it turns out, quite a lot.

You see, with Climate Change, the boot has been placed rather unceremoniously on the other foot.

With Climate Change, fans of the scientific method are suddenly experiencing what believers have experienced for centuries - an urgent need to wake-up the Inert Agnostic.

For it is quite possible to be Agnostic about Climate Change, with the capital C's. There is documented evidence of climate change with the lower case c's, but to put these different bits of evidence together and state that man is responsible and it will continue to get worse is to enter into the realm of probability.

In this realm, you ultimately rely on belief.

This is true of any scientific theory, but with Climate Change a religious comparison is strong, because proponents of Climate Change point to a devastating result if their theory is not adhered to.

Cimate Change will have teleological proof (as we in the theology game call it); the theory will be proved correct in the end, when the predicted disasters have occurred.

Obviously, proponents of Climate Change can't wait for that to happen so, with what some might call a religious zeal, they are trying to win converts to their cause.

And I am all for that. I believe in Climate Change and think we should be doing everything we can to stop it.

But then I have form. I already hold an unsubstantiated belief that inspires me to try and get others to change their beliefs.

People who share my belief have also done some very bad things (a lot lot worse than fabricating evidence to be fair) but it doesn't mean that I should be tarred with the same brush, and it also doesn't fundamentally weaken my argument.

My belief asks people to change their behaviour - and that makes believers unpopular in some circles.

So welcome to my world Climate Change believers!

And while you are here, why not look around and see what else might take your fancy in the realm of beliefs that might save mankind from future disaster...

DD out