The Environmentalist on my friends list was upset, and replied:
Then he added:that's awfully christian of you. you'd think that trying to look out for the environment and working towards minimizing one's carbon footprint so the future might be a little less toxic and there might be fewer issues with scarcity would b...e on the game plan for the one god and his followers in the 21st century. I guess the flat earther mentality of "It was put here for me to use and abuse as I see fit" is still alive and well even after the age of colonialism...
taking pride in working against something that is intended to be a positive gesture and tool for educating people on the dangers that our world is facing due to poor resource allocation and exploitation instead of putting forth a different strategy (if that is one's issue with the whole thing and not just a blatant disregard for the well being of the environment and those that share it with you/those that will inherit it) is pretty shameful if you ask me.
I bet if J.C. were alive today he would be a environmental socialist. Just saying...Here is my reply:
Like you, I am intentionally provoking an emotional response, with the hope that people will stop and re-think certain things.
If you want to talk about what those things are, or what I think a more reasonable approach to Environmental stewardship should look like, or the hypocrisy within the movement that I object to, I will be happy to do so.
But I would first like to take a moment to specifically discuss your reaction to my statement, as I had said when I first replied to you.
There seem to be 2 things you come to my fb page to weigh in on. One -- to defame Christ personally (or Christians generally), the other -- to tout a particular brand of Environmentalism.
I don't see this as a coincidence.
These are two things that you obviously care about. You aren't stopping in to talk about your personal triumphs and tragedies, or ask about mine -- you are coming with Issues in mind. This is not a complaint, I actually enjoy the dialogue with people I disagree with. It forces me to think about my own positions more clearly, and either re-frame, or change them entirely.
I suspect that the visceral nature of the your first post has an unrehearsed honesty to it. Your statements also have a familiar ring to them.
Your use of emotional appeals and accusations of guilt in an attempt to either "convert" me to your view or abandon my own...
Your language laying out a "Heaven" (better world) and "Hell" (toxic, scarce) as the moral consequence of my choices...
Your personal indignation in response to my lack of eco-Orthodoxy and (heretic that I am?) your impulse to brand me with a "scarlet letter" (Colonialist Flat-Earther) and pass judgment my personal morality (Shameful) as a result of my eco-apostasy.
How is this unlike judging others by a "Canon" of Prophets, Saints and Sacred writings? (Perhaps ancient texts and holy men, have been replaced with Avatar, Suzuki, IPCC, and WWF, but the effect is the same.)
But there's more, isn't there?
There is a Plan of Salvation (Reduce, Reuse Recycle). Or should I say Creed?
There is a system of atonement and absolution (Carbon Offsets, "Terrapass") for those sins you "simply must commit". -- Maybe indulgences would be a better term?
I wonder if you appreciate that your world view is unable to sustain the objectively moral demands you place on it?
Your antagonism toward God seems much like the supposed "New Atheism", which could best be summed up with the phrase "There is no God and I hate him".
From roughly that starting point, you have attempted to lay moral guilt at my feet. Now, don't misunderstand me, Moral guilt really is something I have in abundant supply. But your accusations against me are in direct conflict with your convictions.
Here's why:
Either we were created by a personal God, or we are an uncreated and random coalition of atoms.
If created, a failure to live according to that purpose could incur real moral guilt. (But you reject this view.)
If uncreated, we have no set purpose, and thus, no objective measurement for guilt or innocence.
You're smart enough to realize that random coalitions of atoms make no moral distinction between planting a forest, or burning it down. Between toxic, or non-toxic. Between life, or non-life.
Scarcity and abundance become morally ambivalent ideas. Even arguments about what is left for following generations -- while emotionally compelling -- are, in this framework, sadly irrational.
Do lightning strikes, tsunamis, volanoes, and locust swarms bear moral guilt for their environmental impact? No. So, if we are merely part of an ecosystem, a biological cog in the wheel, why should it matter? Does it make any difference, ethically, whether the forest was destroyed by the careless match or the locust cloud if it's equally gone either way?
But--
As you have rightly demonstrated, our behaviours and choices actually Do matter! Objectively!
There IS such a thing as moral guilt. We Do have a conscience. Defying it really Does produce guilt. Certain types of putting one's own interests ahead of others Really ARE shameful!
It is clear that you are very zealous for your present religion.
Even so, it would not surprise me if -- when this one eventually proves inadequate for you -- that this religious energy of yours turn toward its proper Object:
The One who bore your moral guilt on Himself, to reconcile you to Himself, and give you Peace.
The One who Loves you even while you hate Him.
Your are right to say that many Christians hold their convictions for superficial, emotional and irrational reasons. (As do many environmentalists.) This is a fair criticism.
This does nothing to negate the legitimate rational arguments that either group put forward.
Cheers!
No comments:
Post a Comment