Christian Response to Climate Change Denial and False Science
Christian thought has long grappled with the relationship between divine revelation and human understanding, particularly concerning scientific inquiry. Charles Hodge, in his Systematic Theology, observed that theologians have historically made errors when they allowed their interpretation of the Bible to contradict established scientific facts [2, 5]. He pointed to the resistance to the Copernican theory as an example, where the authority of the Bible was mistakenly staked on a particular interpretation that later proved incorrect [2]. Hodge argued that while interpretations may need to be revised, the Bible itself remains unharmed, and theologians learn an important lesson: to allow science to proceed, trusting that Scripture will ultimately align with well-authenticated scientific findings [2].
This perspective emphasizes a distinction between scientific theories, which are human constructs, and facts, which are considered to be from God [5]. The Bible, according to Hodge, may contradict human theories but never actual facts [5]. Furthermore, there is a crucial difference between the Bible itself and human interpretations of it; interpretations must yield when they conflict with settled facts [5]. Science, in many instances, has guided the Church in understanding the Scriptures, as seen in the shift from a Ptolemaic to a Copernican understanding of the cosmos [5].
Theological systems aim to collect and organize facts revealed by God concerning Himself and humanity's relationship to Him, with these facts primarily found in the Bible [3]. However, this does not mean that all truth is contained exclusively within the Bible in a way that negates other forms of knowledge. Augustine, in City of God, noted that disciplines like definition, division, and partition are not inherently false, even if they are sometimes applied to erroneous doctrines or fictions [4]. These sciences are derived from the "reason of things" rather than being solely human inventions [4].
When considering claims that deny established scientific consensus, particularly regarding issues like climate change, a Christian response can draw on these principles. Denying well-authenticated scientific facts could be seen as analogous to past theological errors where interpretations were prioritized over empirical evidence [2, 5]. The faith of a Christian in the Bible is likened to the universal human recognition of moral law, which is perceived as both true and possessing divine authority [6]. However, this faith is distinct from subjective experiences or philosophical theories that might be wrongly integrated into Scriptural doctrine [10, 12].
The Apostle John warns against those who deny fundamental truths, stating, "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son" [1]. While this passage primarily addresses theological denial of Christ's identity, it establishes a biblical precedent for identifying falsehood in the denial of essential truths. Similarly, Paul, in 1 Corinthians, states that if Christ has not been raised, then Christian preaching and faith are "vain" or "empty" [9, 11]. This highlights the importance of foundational truths—whether theological or factual—for the coherence of belief.
Theological objections to scientific findings often stem from a denial of supernaturalism or a misunderstanding of God's relationship to the world [7]. However, objects of faith can be "above reason" without being "against reason" [8]. What is above reason is simply incomprehensible, while what is against reason is impossible, such as contradictions being true [8]. Therefore, a Christian approach to scientific findings, including those related to climate change, should distinguish between what is genuinely incomprehensible within a theological framework and what contradicts established facts. The historical lesson from past scientific advancements suggests that theological interpretations should be open to revision in light of robust scientific evidence [2, 5].
Sources
- King James Version “[KJV] 1 John 2:22 — Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, section 21: resisted the adoption of the Copernican theory of our solar system. They interpreted the Bible in a sense contradictory to that theory. So far as in them lay, they staked the authority of the Bible on the correctness of their interpretation. The theory proved to be true, and the received interpretation had to be given up. The Bible, however, has received no injury, although theologians have been taught an important lesson; that is, to let science take its course, assured that the Scriptures will accommodate themselves to all well-authenti”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, section 8: to ascertain, collect, and combine all the facts which God has revealed concerning himself and our relation to Him. These facts are all in the Bible. This is true, because everything revealed in nature, and in the constitution of man concerning God and our relation to Him, is contained and authenticated in Scripture. It is in this sense that “the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the religion of Protestants.” It may be admitted that the truths which the theologian has to reduce to a science, or, to speak more humbly, which he has to arrange a”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “NPNF1 Vol 2: Augustine — City of God, Christian Doctrine — CHAP. 35 .--THE SCIENCE OF DEFINITION IS NOT FALSE, THOUGH IT MAY BE APPLIED TO FALSITIES.: 53. Again, the science of definition, of division, and of partition, although it is frequently applied to falsities, is not itself false, nor framed by man's device, but is evolved from the reason of things. For although poets have applied it to their fictions, and false philosophers, or even heretics--that is, false Christians--to their erroneous doctrines, that is no reason why it should be false, for example, that neither in definition, nor i”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, section 41: because we know that it is not a satellite of our planet. (3.) There is a great distinction between theories and facts. Theories are of men. Facts are of God. The Bible often contradicts the former, never the latter. (4.) There is also a distinction to be made between the Bible and our interpretation. The latter may come into competition with settled facts; and then it must yield. Science has in many things taught the Church how to understand the Scriptures. The Bible was for ages understood and explained according to the Ptolemaic system”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 11: of research or argument, but of inward experience. The change may, and often does, take place in a moment. The faith of a Christian in the Bible is, as before remarked, analogous to that which all men have in the moral law, which they recognize not only as truth, but as having the authority of God. What the natural man perceives with regard to the moral law the renewed man is enabled to perceive in regard to “the things of the Spirit,” by the testimony of that Spirit with and by the truth to his heart. Proof from Express Declarations of S”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 7: § 4. Objection. The same objections which are urged against other doctrines of grace are pressed against the Augustinian view of the nature of regeneration. These objections are of three classes. Denial of Supernaturalism. 1. The first class of objections are founded on the denial of Theism; or at least on the denial of the Scriptural doctrine of the relation of God to the world. It is an assumption common to most of the forms of modern philosophy that the only agency of the Supreme Being (whether personal or impersonal) is according to la”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 12: allowed to do so, but they must renounce all claim to philosophic insight. May the Objects of Faith be above, and yet not against Reason? A fifth question is, Whether the objects of faith may be above, and yet not contrary to reason? The answer to this question is to be in the affirmative, for the distinction implied is sound and almost universally admitted. What is above reason is simply incomprehensible. What is against reason is impossible. It is contrary to reason that contradictions should be true; that a part should be greater than ”
- 1 Corinthians (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on 1 Corinthians 15:14: your faith . . . vain-- (Co1 15:11). The Greek for "vain" here is, empty, unreal: in Co1 15:17, on the other hand, it is, without use, frustrated. The principal argument of the first preachers in support of Christianity was that God had raised Christ from the dead (Act 1:22; Act 2:32; Act 4:10, Act 4:33; Act 13:37; Rom 1:4). If this fact were false, the faith built on it must be false too.”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 49: the simple Scriptural statement. Realism, however, is a philosophical theory outside of the Scriptures, intended to account for the fact that Adam’s sin is the ground of the condemnation of our race. It introduces a doctrine of universals, of the relation of individuals to genera and species, concerning which the Scriptures teach nothing, and it makes that philosophical theory an integral part of Scripture doctrine. This is adding to the word of God. It is making the truth of Scriptural doctrines to depend on the correctness of philosophi”
- 1 Corinthians (Methodist/Wesleyan) “Adam Clarke on 1 Corinthians 15:14: Then is our preaching vain - Our whole doctrine is useless, nugatory and false. And your faith is also vain - Your belief of a false doctrine must necessarily be to you unprofitable.”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, section 42: they feel, so suitable as that given in the Bible, and therefore they believe all its great doctrines. But the ground of their faith is purely subjective. It is not the testimony of God given in his Word, but their own experience. They take what suits that, and reject the rest. Others with less Christian experience, or with no experience distinctively Christian, reject all the distinctive doctrines of Christianity, and adopt a form of religious philosophy which they are willing to call Christianity. 5. That this theory is antiscriptural h”