Why should Athiests care about Climate change?

(Benjamin) #1


I have recently been watch David Attenborough’s documentary on Climate change. Attenborough who is a atheist/evolutionist says (paraphrased), we must do something about climate change because it affects other species and ecosystems. However, my struggle is this if evolution is about survival for the fittest or natural selection (as its fundamental baseline argument), then why does the fact that climate change is affecting other species on the other side of the planet matter? Would they not be consider the weaker species? Would this not simply be a case of natural selection working itself out?

I am not saying that Athiests aren’t moral people or that they don’t care (too be honest many of my Atheist friend show Christians up in how kind, considerate and caring they are) but what I’m asking is how can they justify it?

Please could anyone help me shed light on this.


God Bless


(Micah Bush) #2

I think the most basic answer is that species and systems don’t exist in a vacuum. Everything on earth is interconnected, such that what is done in North America affects the rainforests of Brazil, and vice versa. For that reason, the health of humanity depends on the overall health of the system, and maintaining a diversity of systems and species makes for a more resilient (and therefore more habitable) planet. Cut one too many strands, and the whole web of life starts to fall apart. Then too, the process of evolution has produced some remarkable innovations in the realm of survival that might benefit humanity (ex. antibiotics or anti-tumor compounds), so it is in the interests of humanity to preserve biodiversity rather than risk losing the innovations produced by natural selection.

Of course, the question still remains that if humanity is ultimately the accidental product of random events that must ultimately (along with the rest of the universe) die out, why should we value ourselves? If there is no ultimate, enduring measure of value (i.e. God) to back us and declare us valuable, then why should we care whether humanity endures?

(Stephen Wuest) #3

I find the arguments of atheistic materialists, interesting. Many are one-sided, and appealed to arbitrarily. That is, those who use materialistic arguments often appeal to them only when it seems to help the point that they are currently trying to make. But, they don’t examine those same arguments, when they could lead to conclusions that the person doesn’t believe in.

“Survival of the fittest” is appealed to, whenever some individuals die that the user of the argument doesn’t care about. But it is ignored, when some species goes extinct that was beautiful, or obviously had a place in the natural environment. No one who is PC would apply survival of the fittest to say that dirt poor migrants from Central America should probably die on their journey, because they are not fitted to survive.

“Random variation” is appealed to, to counter all arguments about a designer of the natural world. But when someone like Ed Dembski or Michael Behe appeal to the actual (limited) power of mathematical randomness or chemical DNA randomness to show that the current complex information in nature cannot be explained by random dynamics, then they are mocked as idiots.

That human beings fall into (biologically) the animal kingdom, is used in very schizophrenic arguments. To argue that there should be “human rights” apart from just living as an animal, is to deny the argument that a human being is just an animal. When atheists don’t want to consider the more advanced contemplations of human beings about morality/ethics, they say that human beings are just animals, so morality/ethics is a useless subject. But then they appeal incoherently to concepts of genocide, and oppression, and a fair rule of law, and human rights, and property rights, and identity, and compassion, which are based on the idea that human beings are not just another animal.

There are real logical reasons why atheists should be concerned with the health of the natural environment. Christians have biblical texts that address the responsible treatment of the land, and animals, and other human beings. But the atheistic PC approach is to appeal to one-sided arguments, incoherently, whenever they please the user of the argument. And apart from all of God’s moral/ethical code.

1 Like