*Posted by Joe Wooddell
The other day I took my family to see To The Arctic at the OMNIMAX. The description on the theatre’s website said the film depicted caribou, walruses, and polar bears in a “rapidly changing climate,” and that viewers would be swept away with feeling and emotion. The trailer mentioned the “love” and “hope” the mother polar bear feels as she navigates through what has become a “nearly uninhabitable” environment.
Given all this (as well as the soothing narration voice of Meryl Streep, original songs by Paul McCartney, and amazing cinematography), I’m not sure I should have expected anything less than liberal environmentalism and dehumanizing propaganda. Sure, the images were fun to watch, but that’s just it: they hook you with image, thus sugar-coating their ideology. I’m not saying this method of reaching people is immoral. In fact, I wrote an entire book about how believers should use Beauty in their evangelistic and apologetic encounters with unbelievers. It’s just disheartening to see how good at it unbelievers are compared with believers. But back to the film . . .
A couple of things struck me as I watched the film. First, the narration pointed out how wonderful it is for the mother polar bear to watch over and protect her cubs, leading them away from predators and toward food and safety. (It then approvingly mentioned that either mother walruses or caribou, I forget which, stay with their young even longer.) In fact, it mentioned the mother bear being willing to lay down her own life for the safety of her cubs, and it seemed to applaud this self-sacrifice. I wonder if the filmmakers would give just as much praise to human women who sacrifice their lives, their personal hopes and dreams of career, money, power, and influence, in order to stay near and protect their human children.
Second, it seemed like every couple of minutes the narration was bemoaning the supposed warming of the Arctic, telling how in just a few years all the ice could be gone and how the living things that depend on the ice would then die off or suffer greatly. It also claimed humans were largely to blame for such warming. What struck me was the boldness of the claim that humans were largely to blame, especially in light of such diverse scientific studies on the subject. More subtly, however, I was struck by the assumption that humans should somehow feel ashamed or culpable for such global warming. Presumably, the filmmakers are neo-Darwinian evolutionists, but if neo-Darwinism is true, then things just evolve by random mutation and natural selection. And if that’s the case, why bemoan anything in a moral sense? There is no “should” or “ought.” Rather, there is just “taste,” what I like or dislike.
In other words, if nature is all that exists, no one part of it is any more special or to be preferred (in an absolute moral sense) than any other. Things just are. Why hope that the polar bears survive instead of the fish they eat, or the fish over the krill for that matter? Why worry about the survival of any particular biological species over another? Why not do a documentary about how horrible it is that polar bears are eating fish or baby walruses? Why not follow a mommy fish and her babies, and try to make the audience emotional about those babies being eaten by polar bears? Perhaps it’s because fish aren’t very cuddly.
For Christ and Culture 
I love your “evolution” of the environmental and animal rights jibberish and its purpose— especially the part about the uncuddly fish. I would add on a more serious note, that these same people usually find those of us who give of our resources and sometimes risk our reputation and freedom to protect unborn children to be very cuddly either…although I think that may be what you were elluding to when you spoke of mothers protecting their children. I have a project to raise money to help children and families in Latvia who are struggling to obtain the necessities of life (food and clothing) as well as education and families staying together in a very difficult economy. Recently the missionary famiily that I work with on some of these projects have asked for my help to start the FIRST outreach in Latvia to help women who are considering an abortion. I have approached people that I know are donating money to the SPCA, save the polar bear, whale, etc and had either very little or no response. It seems that many people in our American society are more interested in the environment of animals than that of people. I plan to use some of your blog as I think it may be helpful to cause people to “think.”
Thank you. And God bless you as you figure out the most effective ways to help women and children in the name of Christ.
Presumably you do not mean to suggest that environmentalism is un-Christian, yet you do nothing to dissuade your readers from that conclusion. I can be, and in fact am, a Christian and someone who cares about the state of our environment, accepts the theory of global warming on the basis of evidence (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence), and believes that human beings very probably are partly to blame (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf). I am neither a neo-darwinist nor an anti-humanist. It is not inconsistent to care about the survival of polar bears AND the fate of unborn children (or support the ASPCA and suffering people around the world!). I am deeply disappointed with the evangelical response (or lack thereof) to environmental concerns, and the politically charged, conspiratorial, anti-scientific rhetoric that takes the place of thoughtful positions.
Thanks for the input. You are absolutely correct that believers should be concerned with stewardship over the created order, although you and I might have different notions about what that entails. Believers should figure out ways to take the raw material and make parts of it more orderly, profitable, and human-friendly (there is not necessarily any contradiction here). You are also correct that one can be concerned about the plight of polar bears and the plight of the unborn at the same time. But as I said, I wonder if the filmmakers would place as much value on human mothers sacrificing for their young as they do about polar bear mothers sacrificing for their young. Just a question.
I think you probably missed those points, as well as the point that IF the filmmakers are neo-Darwinist and, I might add, naturalists – meaning there is no supernatural, only nature – (and I assume, perhaps wrongly, that they are), then there’s no such thing as absolute ethics. Rather, there is only taste. My post really has nothing to do with what believers should think or do about the created order, as worthy a topic as that might be. (Incidentally, the theme of this year’s national Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) meeting in Milwaukee in November is “Caring for Creation.” See http://www.etsjets.org for more information. My presentation there will treat “C. S. Lewis on Caring for Creation.”)
It is clearly NOT simply an honest question. The obvious rhetorical effect of “wondering” whether environmentalists are misanthropes, or god-less, immoral secularists, is to suggest that they probably are (without, of course, actually needing to present any evidence to that effect!). This is what I find so disagreeable about your post and the broader attitude toward environmentalism. Anyone who takes clear environmentalist positions that are not (politically) conservative enough (or pro-industry enough!) are all too often subject to malevolent suspicions, of which you give example. If you do not wish to suggest this, you should be more careful when thinking out loud in public. . .
(Response to Hot Air’s Aug. 7 note):
I am making some assumptions. I admit as much. I assume the filmmakers are not theists (i.e., I assume they do not believe in a personal God who is “other”). I also assume (based not on any scientific study, but on people I’ve met, talked to, or heard) they typically would not applaud women for staying home with their children, giving up lucrative careers, in order to be the primary nurturers, educators, and care-givers of their own children. I don’t need a scientific study in order to assume this. I admit I could be wrong; that’s why I say I’m just asking, wondering. I would love it if they were consistent on this count.
You are misrepresenting me. You say I have these views about “environmentalists,” but this is not the case. I have these views about environmentalists who are also probably metaphysical naturalists and neo-Darwinian evolutionists. But if they are metaphysical naturalists and neo-Darwinian evolutionists, then they have no reason (besides taste) to applaud ethics of any kind whatsoever.
It was precisely my aim to point out and call into question your assumptions. There seems to be a very large contingent of conservative Christians who believe that environmentalism (especially global warming) is a left-wing plot by the secular elites to overthrow democracy and family values. That may be an overstatement, but you did call a film about polar bears, “liberal environmentalism and dehumanizing propaganda,” and a “sugar-coated ideology”. Then there is the sense one gets that you believe global warming is so palpably absurd that anyone who advances the idea must have an ulterior motive (there must be a world-wide conspiracy by climatologists. . .). Hence, the impression I got from your post is that environmentalism is dangerous, foolish, and immoral, and I assume that I am not so different from others to be alone in this. . . You say, “I have these views about environmentalists who are also probably metaphysical naturalists and neo-Darwinian evolutionists.” The issue is precisely this: there is a presumption that anyone who espouses these views surely must not be a Christian, or is at any rate, deeply confused. And it is this presumption, and the culture that fosters it that I find to be damaging. There is a partisan, ideological tone to this debate that I find ill-fitting followers of Christ, and which I am disappointed to find in your post.
Also, I ignored it it originally, but since you mention it again: It is absurd to make a complete, fully worked out moral theory that is entirely consistent with one’s metaphysic a requirement for making any moral claim (or having moral reasons) whatsoever. (At least I hope that it is, fearing as I do that, despite my best efforts, I would fail this criteria.) I take it that you yourself would say that some moral beliefs are properly basic, perhaps even, “We ought not to cause the extinction of a species.” So it simply isn’t true as you say, “if they are metaphysical naturalists and neo-Darwinian evolutionists, then they have no reason (besides taste) to applaud ethics of any kind whatsoever.” (You are assuming that neo-Darwinism (a misnomer) entails atheism?) If a contradiction can be derived from those moral claims and their metaphysic, so much the worse for their metaphysic; but, if you want to reject those claims, you will need an argument. It won’t do to reject a moral claim merely because it is being made by a Naturalist.
(Response to “Hot Air’s” second Aug. 7 note):
Dear Hot Air:
Okay, you’ve called into question my assumptions, just as I’ve called into question what I take to be the filmmakers’ assumptions. I use the word “liberal” in this post in the popular sense, so I don’t think that’s a problem. Clearly the film is “environmentalist” in nature, so that’s not a problem with my post. It is “dehumanizing” insofar as it attributes things like love, hope, and a sort of conscious self-sacrifice to polar bears. I take these things to apply only to persons, and I don’t consider polar bears persons. So that word’s not a problem (for me, at least; perhaps other people think polar bears can love and have hope, etc., in which case it would not be dehumanizing for them). And it is “propoganda.” That is, while the film is billed as a show about nature and polar bears, it is, in my opinion, overly indulgent in the climate change craze. Granted, the description of the film on the website briefly mentioned these things, but from reading the description, I didn’t get the impression that it would take such liberties over and over again.
Given the vastly different conclusions by scientists, I do think it’s absurd to think humans are mostly to blame for climate change, and I think it would be absurd to alter our lifestyles radically in order to try and combat it. We’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this. I guess people are welcome to watch Al Gore’s film and also look at the Cornwall Alliance or Heritage Foundation’s websites. Doubtless you’ll say the latter two sources are conspiratorial and unscientific.
Also, I didn’t say anyone who is a neo-Darwinian evolutionist must not be Christian. Rather, I said anyone who is a neo-Darwinian evolutionist AND who holds to metaphysical naturalism has no reason (except taste) to prefer one ethic to another. Also, if by “neo-Darwinian” you mean someone who believes in unguided evolution, then I guess it would, in fact, entail atheism (I guess you could still be a deist, but not a theist). But if by “neo-Darwinian” you simply mean some type of macro-evolutionary theory, then sure, you could be a theist. But unless I’m mistaken, most neo-Darwinists believe in unguided evolution. Thus the mantra: “random” mutation, “natural” selection.
Finally, I’m not rejecting any moral claim merely because it’s being made by a naturalist. That’s where you are MOST mistaken in addressing my comments. Please try to get this: I’m simply saying that neo-Darwinists (if they are metaphysical naturalists) have no good reason (besides taste) to prefer one ethic to another. So if the filmmakers are neo-Darwinist metaphysical naturalists, then it can only be their taste (not some good argument or Platonic idea or metaphysical ground or special (or even general) revelation), and perhaps their mere exercise of power, that guides their mandate to be what they consider environmentally responsible, or that guides their notion that a mother sacrificing for her young is somehow morally praiseworthy. Maybe it is the right thing to do to be interested in polar bears and melting ice, but the whole notion of “right” doesn’t mean a whole lot on their naturalistic worldview (which I assume they hold).
I don’t have any problem with anyone who disagrees with me about global warming or its causes and possible solutions. I am all too happy to let others do their own research and come to their own conclusions. (After all, if global warming is true, it will become increasingly more apparent, and more difficult to deny.) All I ask is that I be afforded the same courtesy. I am not ‘crazed’, nor am I an alarmist; I take what I consider to be a reasonable and rather moderate position. There are, of course, radical environmentalists with some rather extreme ideas, which, of course, I do not endorse. But, it is not these people’s acceptance of global warming or any other scientific theory that leads to extremism and anti-Christian, anti-humanistic attitudes, but rather their prior commitments (more often to a postmodern worldview than to naturalism). What you and many others do (including the organizations you mentioned) is to imply, if not say outright, that belief in global warming is itself inherently incompatible with Christianity (how else am I to interpret this – http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/). If you don’t believe I’m right, then by all means, make your case, but please do not presume that we are all atheists or Marxists or some other manner of horrible creature. And if you think that the theory of global warming IS incompatible with Christianity, make that case as well, because for all the gesturing in that direction, I have yet to hear a coherent argument to that effect.
The random genetic mutations of modern evolutionary theory are only random in the sense that they occur without a view to their consequences (in terms of fitness, the majority of mutations are harmful). The fact that Dawkins, Coyne, and many others think that this means they are unguided only belies their utter inability to differentiate natural science from metaphysics. The biological theory of evolution, including random genetic mutation, does not entail atheism.
“I’m simply saying that neo-Darwinists (if they are metaphysical naturalists) have no good reason (besides taste) to prefer one ethic to another.” This statement seems to admit of more than one interpretation, both which I dispute. First, if it is an epistemological claim you are making, that naturalists are necessarily unreasonable, unjustified, or unwarranted in making objective moral claims, then it seems to me that you are simply wrong. If a naturalist believes a objective moral claim (e.g., “Murder is wrong”), and that belief was formed through his moral sense/intuition, then that belief is possibly justified/warranted for him and possibly even properly basic. He may take such beliefs to be moral axioms and use them as reasons for other moral beliefs. So what if this belief creates “doxastic incoherence”? Obviously that would not be an ideal state of affairs, meaning that one or more of his beliefs are false, but it does not negate that belief’s justification.
Secondly, on a different but related interpretation, you might mean to make a logical claim–a claim that from the statement of naturalism (“Only nature exists”) or the set of statements that constitute naturalism, one can derive a statement like, “There are no objective moral values.” Hence, naturalism is necessarily incompatible with objective moral claims, and anyone who is a naturalist, and whose beliefs are are consistent with naturalism, will not believe any objective moral claims on pain of contradiction. I think that this is basically correct, but I don’t think that it does the work you would have it do for two reasons. One, it is not obvious that such a contradiction can be derived from from the statement of naturalism, or at any rate not obvious enough for your statement to carry any weight, for which it seems necessary that there be a clear logical connection (e.g., “Idealism is incompatible with panpsychism” may be true but unaccompanied by good reasons, it does not serve as an argument). Moreover, there is a great deal of variety within naturalism and it is not obvious what naturalism entails to begin with. Two, even if the logical argument can be made explicit (which you haven’t, but I think that it can, though not without some pains) your form of argumentation still seems invalid. Many have made a compelling case that naturalism is incompatible with human rationality, that is, if naturalism were true we would have no reason to think our cognitive faculties provided us with true beliefs. This strongly counts against naturalism, and we are right to point it out. However, having made our objection to naturalism it seems wrong to disallow all debate because they can “have no good reason” for any of their beliefs. Their inconsistency counts against their naturalism, but it doesn’t count against each and every statement they endorse. The same goes for moral debate–having pointed out their inconsistency, we must now deal with the claims they make and the proximate reasons they give for making them (or ignore them altogether). For example, naturalists say pollution is morally wrong–either that is true or not, and it either follows from their reasons given or it does not, and that whether or not it is ultimately incompatible with naturalism. What you have done is to point out that inconsistency and ignore the truth or falsity of their claims. It appears to be a rebuttal of their claim that humans are culpable for global warming but it is no such thing.
I hope I haven’t overstayed my welcome, I just find this very interesting. . .
(Reply to Hot Air’s Aug. 8 note):
I just looked back at my initial post and I still can’t see what you think is so wrong about it, even given all your lengthy criticism. The first paragraph is introductory. I’ve already made my case for the second paragraph, which basically says two things: first, unbelievers are great at using things like film, beauty, the arts and means other than rational argumentation to get their points across, while believers need to do better with this. (This is not to say, of course, that believers shouldn’t use rational argumentation as well; they should.) Second, I use terms like “dehumanizing” and “propaganda,” which I’ve alredy defended.
The third paragraph says the filmmakers praise mother animals caring for their young, and I question whether they would praise human mothers equally (I assume they would not). The fourth paragraph says the debate is still out as to how much humans are responsible for climate change. It also says that if the filmmakers are metaphysical naturalists, then they have no basis for “should” or “ought” besides taste (your lengthy counterarguments notwithstanding). (You are correct that they might know some things are ethically wrong; I’m just saying I have a basis for such a thing as truth (ethical, epistemological, etc.) while they do not.)
The final paragraph sums it all up, surmising that maybe it’s simply because polar bears look cuddly that people take more interest in them than in, say, fish, krill, or something else. So all of your comments notwithstanding, I still don’t see the problem. Sorry. You have, in my opinion, gone down other roads with other thinkers and their views, but not with mine. You seem upset with me that I haven’t given full blown arguments for things you find important. Or you are upset that I haven’t fully argued for everything I might imply (or that you think I imply). I hear what you’re saying; I just disagree. You think I should give more arguments for what I’ve said or what you think I imply, and I simply disagree. But thanks for the interaction.