Christians join theists and atheists in regard for the gift of life

The mutual impetus to change human conduct that threatens life on the planet concerns us all, no exceptions.
     Samuel Scheffler, philosopher of New York University, published recently in the New York Times an article (see endnote) on the human condition, or situation. His viewpoint is premised not on the uncertainty principle, but rather on the certainty principle of human mortality. The viewpoint is not tucked into an atheist or theist stance which I as a believer in God feels uncomfortable in endorsing.
     I ask of my fellow believers in not only God, but the God of justice, mercy, and compassion, to give his disposition the merit it deserves. Ethical conduct by the individual and by society remains our subject however. Scheffler is a proponent of mindfulness about the legacy we can and should leave to our successors on the planet Earth.
     This can be viewed as a superior disposition to an old world notion which was concerned with ancestor worship, and tradition for tradition’s sake. Shame about one’s conduct often is framed in terms of having failed the expectations of our ancestors that placed their hope in our success in perpetuating and extending civilization.
     In my life time, I can not forget the shame of America in suing for peace in the 1970s and abandoning its toe hold support of post-colonial powers and its control and influence on mainland Asia (outside of South Korea and Taiwan). It was indeed to have a reflexive assertion of power and influence in two wars in the new century’s first decade at the same time to assert the role of the American Empire in Asia: Afghanistan (from 2002 and by 2013 winding down) and Iraq ( from 2003 and by 2009-2010 winding down).
     What is a little more difficult to assert is that society either has the will and the leadership or it does not to affect desirable conducts. Scheffler posits an idealist principle that intelligent acceptance of the realities of the human race has impetus for change. For example, current certainty about human causation of global warming is termed in a percentage (95% of concerned scientific appraisal).
     As to what can or should be done to curtail the negative effects of global warming, politicians remain more beholden to trade and industry and current profit margins for capitalism and continued exploitation of the world’s resources to perpetuate wealth predicated on world markets and consumerism.
     What issue I take is not with Scheffler’s humanism or his rationalism for indeed we currently resident on Earth do succeed or fail premised on the future hold of the human race on this planet, its habitability, and its fostering of life.
     My issue would be with persons, Christians or not, who conclude that the tomorrow for the planet can be divorced from one’s view of the afterlife. The concern of Jesus was for the entirety of society and Christianity per se has as its concern all persons without exception as subject to redemption and salvation. He did not exclude generations yet unborn.
     If one posits “end times,” then one lives with greater urgency the day God gives us to live. That urgency of which Scheffler speaks (regard for posterity) is just as valid with a personal afterlife as a guarantee of God’s provision for his children. Christians just can not, must not, separate themselves from theists and atheists whose common humanity is ever more apparent in the custodial role of the human race in its care of the planet that fosters life.
     If faith is valid for the individual and the individual community (and I believe that it is), that faith can not abandon the perpetuation of life and the health of this planet as its concern. The common enemy is the devil in the details, the crass indifference to the planet's health and the human community's failure to safeguard life and its perpetuation by what means we have to do so.

Rick Hilber, Monday, September 30, 2013

End Note. See Star Tribune, Sunday, September 29, 2013, at OP4 for “What to do today if tomorrow never comes?” by Samuel Scheffler as reprinted from the New York Times prior publication of the article.