Critiquing: #037 — Is the World Doomed? Global Justice and Climate Change

May 21, 2020 | Ask NT Wright Anything – Premier

Global justice — Climate change — Christian responsibility — New creation — Greta Thunberg

---

Episode Assessment:

		Commentary
Degree of Accuracy	C+	The episode addresses significant topics like climate change and global justice with a reasonable degree of accuracy. However, it simplifies complex issues without providing sufficient depth or evidence. For instance, historical references lack detailed explanations, which could provide a more nuanced understanding.
Degree of Coherence	B-	The arguments are generally coherent and flow logically, but there are occasional jumps between unrelated topics. This affects the overall coherence, making it harder for the audience to follow the line of reasoning consistently. The discussion on global justice, climate change, and their theological implications would benefit from a more structured approach.
Absence of Fallacies	C	Some statements lack evidence and may contain logical fallacies. For example, the generalization that climate action movements are panicky lacks specific examples or evidence, leading to potential misunderstandings. Addressing each argument with detailed evidence would improve this aspect.
Degree of Evidence	C-	The claims are supported by minimal evidence, relying heavily on personal opinions. There are few references to scientific studies or concrete data, which weakens the overall argument. Incorporating more empirical evidence would strengthen the credibility of the discussion.
Degree of Testability	D+	Many assertions are not easily testable or verifiable. Statements about divine intervention or historical analogies without specific details are difficult to assess in terms of testability. Providing more concrete examples or case studies would help in evaluating the claims.
Rational Confidence	C	The confidence in the statements varies, with some assertions being more substantiated than others. While the overall message is clear, the varying degrees of evidence and logical coherence impact the rational confidence. Ensuring that all claims are equally well-supported would enhance this metric.

Potential/Apparent Weaknesses:

1. Degree of Accuracy

The podcast covers significant topics like climate change and global justice with a fair degree of accuracy. However, it occasionally simplifies complex issues without providing sufficient depth or evidence.

“It’s almost as though in every generation people trundle along thinking the world is going okay, and then they suddenly think, oh my goodness, there’s this problem, there’s that problem, and it’s as though…”

This statement lacks specific examples and evidence, making it harder to assess its accuracy fully.

2. Absence of Fallacies

There are instances where arguments could be considered fallacious due to lack of evidence or sweeping generalizations.

“The danger with some of what I hear at the moment is that it’s panicky, it’s just, oh dear, we’ve got to stop everything now…”

This type of generalization can lead to misunderstanding the urgency of climate action movements without addressing their valid concerns comprehensively.

---

Formulations of Major Arguments

Argument #1: The Sovereignty of God Over Creation

Premises:

1. God, as the Creator, is sovereign over the present and future.
2. Historical events like the Black Death show that humanity has faced severe challenges.
3. Despite these challenges, God’s sovereignty ensures the eventual renewal of creation.

Conclusion:
Therefore, the belief in God’s sovereignty provides hope and assurance that the world will ultimately be renewed.

Counter-Argument:
While the belief in divine sovereignty provides hope, it can also lead to complacency. It is crucial to balance faith with proactive stewardship of the environment. Assuming divine intervention without human responsibility can undermine efforts to address urgent ecological crises effectively.

Argument #2: The Role of Christians in Addressing Climate Change

Premises:

1. Christians are called to care for the world as part of their faith.
2. This responsibility involves supporting scientific research and environmental preservation.
3. Panicking about climate change is not helpful; a measured, prayerful approach is needed.

Conclusion:
Christians should approach climate change with a calm, prayerful mindset, supporting scientific efforts to address environmental issues.

Counter-Argument:
While a calm approach is important, the urgency of climate change necessitates immediate and decisive action. Prayer and reflection are valuable, but they must be coupled with tangible efforts to mitigate environmental damage. Dismissing the urgency can delay critical measures needed to prevent irreversible harm.

Argument #3: The Integration of Science and Faith

Premises:

1. Science and faith should not be seen as opposing forces.
2. Christians should trust scientific findings, especially regarding climate change.
3. Distrust of science, linked to Darwinian theories, is unfounded.

Conclusion:
Christians should integrate scientific understanding with their faith to address climate change effectively.

Counter-Argument:
Promoting the integration of science and faith is essential, but it requires acknowledging and addressing the historical conflicts between the two. Encouraging scientific literacy and critical thinking within faith communities can help bridge the gap and foster a more constructive dialogue about environmental issues.

Argument #4: The Impact of Western Civilization on Environmental Issues

Premises:

1. Western civilization has contributed significantly to technological advancements.
2. However, it has also led to ecological harm and industrial overreach.
3. Addressing these issues requires a reassessment of industrial practices and values.

Conclusion:
Western civilization needs to reassess its industrial practices and values to mitigate ecological harm.

Counter-Argument:
Critiquing Western civilization’s impact on the environment is valid, but it should also recognize the global nature of industrialization and its environmental consequences. Collaborative international efforts are needed to address these challenges, rather than focusing solely on Western practices.

◉ Addressing Argument #3:

The Critique of Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA)

The concept of non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA), popularized by Stephen Jay Gould, proposes that science and religion occupy separate domains of teaching authority and therefore do not conflict with each other. According to NOMA, science deals with the empirical realm of facts and theories about the universe, while religion addresses questions of ultimate meaning and moral values. Despite its intent to harmonize the relationship between science and religion, this view has faced several criticisms.

Overlap in Claims: Critics argue that there are indeed overlaps between the domains of science and religion. Many religious texts make claims about the natural world that can be examined scientifically. For example, claims about the creation of the universe, the age of the Earth, and miracles are areas where religious assertions intersect with scientific inquiry. These overlaps create points of contention where scientific findings can contradict religious beliefs, challenging the notion of separate, non-interfering domains.

Methodological Differences: The methodologies of science and religion are fundamentally different. Science relies on empirical evidence, experimentation, and peer review, aiming for objectivity. Religion often relies on faith, revelation, and authority. Critics argue that these differences can lead to conflicts when religions make empirical claims that science can test and potentially contradict. The rigorous methods of science aim to minimize bias and provide reproducible results, while religious methodologies do not always follow these principles, leading to a potential clash when empirical claims are made.

Authority and Ethics: Some critics point out that science does indeed have things to say about ethics and morality, areas traditionally seen as the purview of religion. Scientific insights into human behavior, brain function, and social dynamics can inform ethical discussions, suggesting that the magisteria are not as non-overlapping as proposed. For instance, the field of bioethics examines the ethical implications of biological and medical research, bridging the gap between empirical findings and moral considerations.

Exclusion of Non-Religious Moral Systems: The NOMA principle can be criticized for implicitly suggesting that moral and ethical questions are solely the domain of religion. This overlooks secular philosophies and non-religious ethical systems that also provide significant insights into morality without relying on supernatural beliefs. Ethical frameworks such as utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, and virtue ethics offer robust methods for addressing moral questions without recourse to religious doctrine.

Religious Influence on Scientific Inquiry: There is historical and contemporary evidence of religious beliefs influencing scientific research and education, such as controversies over teaching evolution in schools. Critics argue that this influence demonstrates that the separation between science and religion is not always maintained in practice, affecting scientific education and policy. For example, the debates over evolution and intelligent design in the United States show how religious perspectives can impact scientific curricula and public understanding of science.

Reduction of Religion to Morality: By confining religion to the domain of moral values and meaning, NOMA might be oversimplifying the role and influence of religion in people’s lives. Religion often makes claims about the cosmos, human nature, and history that believers take as factual, not just metaphorical or moral. This reductionist view can marginalize important aspects of religious experience and belief, which many adherents see as integral to their understanding of the world.

Opportunity for Confirmation: Despite these criticisms, the NOMA framework can also provide an opportunity for Christians to confirm with science the alleged promises of God to Christians for this earthly life. These include:

• Answered Prayer: Empirical studies could be conducted to examine the effects of prayer on health outcomes. Some research has already explored this, though results are mixed. Rigorous, double-blind studies could further investigate whether prayer influences recovery rates, mental health, or other measurable outcomes.
• Decreased Morbidity and Mortality: Research into lifestyle factors influenced by religious practices, such as diet, community support, and stress reduction, could provide insights into whether Christians experience lower morbidity and mortality rates. Longitudinal studies comparing health outcomes of religious and non-religious populations could be informative.
• Ability to Move Mountains: The relevant passage in the Bible does not appear to be metaphorical. However, even a metaphorical promise could be explored through studies on faith and motivation. Research could examine whether strong religious faith correlates with higher levels of personal achievement, resilience, and the ability to overcome significant life challenges.

These criticisms suggest that the interaction between science and faith-based ideologies is more complex and intertwined than the concept of non-overlapping magisteria might suggest.

---

Warm Welcome: We invite you to share your thoughts and continue this discussion in the comments section below. Let’s explore these ideas together and deepen our understanding of the intricate relationship between science and religion.