Re: Doomsday, maybe...

John Miller (jmiller@gi.alaska.edu)
Mon, 1 Jul 1996 09:16:24 -0800

> Suppose you had the following scenario:
>
> 1. Scientific predictions of a global catastrophe, which might destroy a
>large fraction of human life, as well as many plants and animals.
> 2. Biblical prophecies suggesting the possibility of a future catastrophe.
> 3. Some uncertainty as to when and under what conditions it may happen. A
>controversy among many scientists as to whether it will occur at all.
> 4. Expensive but technically feasible ways to prevent the catastrophe.
>Let's suppose it would take $100 billion to fully prevent it.
>
> Under these conditions, what course would you advocate for the nation?

A purely pragmatic response (sneakily ducking your point):

A. Taken together, items 1 & 3 imply a lack of scientific consensus, hence
in the political world nothing probably could happen regardless of items 3
& 4.

B. If there was a scientific consensus of sorts (recognizing that all
scientists will seldom agree on issues of substance), and if item 2 becomes
a salient point, then our pluralistic national mindset would force us to
cover our eyes and await our doom in order not to give preference to a
particular religious perspective.

A Christian response might depend upon one's eschatalogical viewpoint. If
such a catastrophe should actually be God's global method of ushering in
the new heaven and new earth, who are we to intervene? A sort of
Christianized dualism like the "think globally, act locally" ecomindset,
maybe.

Lots of room for equivocation.

BTW, why not just name your scenario the threat of a major meteor impact
with the earth?

John