Is Creation Care Logical? An Analysis of the Arguments
Creation care, the Christian responsibility to protect and steward the environment for God’s glory, is a contested topic within the wider Christian landscape. I can understand why, too. Often creation care is intertwined with political affiliations and agendas. Conflicting and contested science is often used to drive agendas. Moreover, it seems as if some promote caring for creation over other higher priority issues. For some, the immanent return of Christ makes creation care a moot point. All of these may or may not have merit, but let us leave these issues for another day. Instead, I want us to consider whether Christians should or should not engage in creation care, and I want to do so logically. My attempt to look at logical arguments is so we can get past some of the above issues that get smuggled into the discussion. If we determine Christians should engage in creation care, then we can later ask what that engagement looks like.
A Logical Argument
Before we look specifically at creation care, let us review basic logic. What is logic? Logic is proper reasoning, focusing on how conclusions follow from premises in arguments. Premises are presented and conclusions are reached. Logic is helpful in breaking down an argument into its parts. This allows us to evaluate whether or not each premise is valid and whether or not the premises actually lead to the conclusion. Deductive arguments are perhaps the simplest form of logical argumentation.
It looks like this:
If P1 and P2, then C.
P = premise
C = conclusion
Here are two examples,
P1: All bachelors are not married.
P2: John is married.
C: Therefore, John is not a bachelor.
Or,
P1: An adult is a person who is 18 years old or older.
P2: Kathy is a person who is 25 years old.
C: Therefore, Kathy is an adult.
The premises of each argument lead to their conclusion. If all the premises are true, then the resulting conclusion must also be true. It is logical! If, however, one of the premises is not true, then the argument is said to be invalid. The conclusion may still be true, or it may not be true. We would need a different argument (if one exists) to logically support the conclusion.
For example,
P1: Short people cannot play basketball.
P2: Drew is short.
C: Therefore, Drew cannot play basketball.
In all honesty, the conclusion is true; I cannot play basketball. However, is the argument valid? Do the premises lead to the conclusion? Let us review both premises by starting with the easiest premise to validate, P2: Drew is short. A quick measurement would show that I am 5’6”. The average male height in America is 5’9”, so I am considered short. P2 is a valid argument.
Let’s consider P1. Can short people play basketball? A quick internet search reveals Spud Webb, who was 5’7”, played professional NBA basketball for many years. In fact, he won the 1986 slam dunk contest! Short people can play basketball. P1, then, is not a true premise, it is false. Therefore, my height is not the reason I cannot play basketball, so there must be some other factor(s).
One more example,
P1: All cats are mammals.
P2: Dogs are mammals.
C: Therefore, all cats are dogs.
Notice how both premises are true, yet the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises, therefore the argument is unsound.
An Argument for Creation Care
Now that we have reviewed logical deductive arguments, are there logical and valid arguments for Christians to engage in Creation Care? I would like to present two arguments that I believe argue for Christian engagement in creation care. Consider these arguments and ask if the premises are true (or false), and if the premises lead to the conclusion.
Argument 1
P1: Earth and all upon it are God’s creation.
P2: God character is to manage his creation justly.
P3: Humans are made imago Dei, “in the image of God.”
P4: God’s intent for the image of God is to reflect his character.
C: Therefore, the imago Dei should also manage God’s creation justly.
Or,
Argument 2
P1: God made is creation very good.
P2: Reducing the goodness of something is wrong.
C: Actions that reduce the goodness of creation are wrong.
I invite you to examine these arguments. Are the premises true? And, do the premises lead to their conclusions logically? If so, the arguments stand as valid arguments for creation care. I believe that they are valid.
Now what?
If these argues are valid, now what? Notice that the argument’s conclusions are fairly broad. For example, what does it mean to manage God’s creation justly? Or, what actions reduce the goodness of creation? These questions still need to be answered. However, what these arguments settle is our initial question of whether Christians should engage in creation care. Both arguments point to “yes, we should.” The foundation has now been set. There is a general path ahead of us, where we can explore these new questions. This no easy task, but at least we are headed in the right direction engaging in creation care.
For more information on the basics of logic, check out Dr. William Lane Craig’s book, Learning Logic.
Illustrated and great for teens and up.
