A recent discussion came up here in the UK about whether it was ‘proper’ to ‘bring religion’ into the issue of climate change. My response at the time was to point out the significance of religion in the USA, where the material originated, and the need to ensure that certain unscrupulous people were prevented from manipulating this in order to promote their own agenda.
Since then, (via Chris Mooney) I see that Nisbet & Myers have been having a contretemps about the subject. In referring to Paul Kurtz and Carl Sagan, Nisbet draws my attention to some important matters.
Nisbet points to the importance of emphasising the shared values between science and religion, one presumes as a means of addressing an audience which takes religion seriously. This also places the issues of climate change in the social arena.
This brings up a long-standing ‘problem’ which science, in particular, has had to deal with; the question of whether the ‘scientific’ approach to the world is in contradiction to the ‘religious’ (or, more broadly, faith-based) approach. In a country where argument still persists over the validity of ‘evolution’ vs. ‘intelligent design’, the conflict, which arose in the Middle Ages as a result of the corrected; liberalisation of Universities into Europe (which threatened the monopoly on learning then belonging to the Church), is reawakened. Following the sinuous but rewarding dialogues on Samadhisoft, it occurred to me that this is, at base, a question of whether we see the world from a rationalist or a religious (perhaps ‘spiritual’ is a better word) perspective, inasmuch as these are different.
There is a great deal of complexity involved in attempting to draw together these two distinct perceptions of how existence is constructed. Whilst it may, in itself, be an important and useful matter to resolve, I agree with Mooney that it is not really relevant to the central question we face with regard to climate change (thanks to Michael Tobis for this version of it):
How do we manage the world’s resources?
The reason that it is not necessary to ‘marry’ the two ways of seeing (call them ‘frames’, if you want) is that both share, if not a common set of values (though I suspect that many of the fundamental values are shared), then at the least, a common goal, which is the preservation of life on Earth.
If we share the same desire or intention (and I would contend that practically all rational people would share this goal) , then the motive for our action is, in this instance, not relevant. It may well become significant when it comes down to deciding how to respond to the challenges which climate change poses, but it immediately acts as a force to unify our different perspectives and place us in a shared bond of commitment – to face the responsibility placed on us to preserve life and to act so as to achieve that end.
We all want the same thing; so let’s go and get it.
Old man in a cave 
13 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 19, 2007 at 2:03 pm
inel
Hi fergus,
I see the world with both a religious and a scientific view at the same time. For me, and many engineers and scientists like me, rational and faith-based ways of looking at the world do not contradict: in fact, they coexist and complement each other 🙂
There are some aspects of life that are best handled by reason, and there are some aspects of life that are best answered by faith. There are still unknowns, but they don’t interfere with the basic understanding of the world that I have.
There is a YouTube video on the issue of whether the Bible is a scientific textbook, in which Bill Moyers interviews Sir John Houghton: you might find it interesting.
Michael Tobis is quite correct: as long as a goal is shared and its attainment is not by one party at the expense of another, but all benefit in the end, it really doesn’t matter how we reach them.
Actually, I could say a lot more on this subject, but I just dropped by to find out if you had seen yesterday’s report from the scientific expedition aboard the Polarstern ice-breaker, reported by Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent of Reuters, who had a phone conversation with the team leader yesterday.
September 19, 2007 at 2:30 pm
llewelly
I was raised in the Mormon religion, in Salt Lake City Utah. Nearly all of the Mormons I grew up around believed the second coming (of Jesus Christ) was ‘near’ – a hundred years, two hundred years, ‘in the time of your grandchildren’s grandchildren.
End-times belief is not unique to the LDS (The Church of Latter-Day Saints of Jesus Christ). It occurs, to one degree or another, in almost every branch of American Christianity (presumably elsewhere too). For the most part, they are a minority – but they are a vocal minority, and they have political influence all out of proportion to their numbers.
These people do not believe ‘the preservation of life on Earth’ is in their hands. It’s all up to God, who provided the right amount of resources in the creation, and if it’s small enough to force humanity to war over it during the end-times, well, that”s what the Word of God, in Revelations, has revealed unto them.
A shared values approach is valuable in many places – but there is a substantial portion of religious America with which does not share the value of ‘preservation of life on Earth’.
September 19, 2007 at 2:34 pm
fergusbrown
Hi Inel,
I am sure you are right that many scientists share this way of operating. It reminds me a little (only a little, honest) of Gilles Deleuze’s analysis of modern human identity being schizoid, or neurotic in nature (though his object was the conflict between the standards demanded by capitalism in contrast to those expected by morality).
I’m not disagreeing with you, but I am not sure which aspects of life are best answered by faith, other than the search for meaning we have been discussing on Dennis’ blog. This doesn’t mean I am a PZ Myers-style polemical atheist, on the contrary, the delving into philosophy has always been at least in part inspired by questions arising from the sense of a non-physical existence which persists, both in the personal and the universal sense.
It does seem as if a collective awareness/consciousness does exist that action to improve the condition of the planet is necessary, but the other day, I realised that it took environmentalism thirty or forty years to really ‘catch on’, and longer before it became an ‘accepted’ position to be addressed in planning decisions. I am concerned that this kind of timescale is not open to acceptance of climate change demands. Luckily, there are the grounds of environmentalism on which to base a starting-point, but progress in winning meaningful action is perilously slow.
Interesting piece about the ice; it would be interesting to know how much has changed in the interior (the NSIDC graphic on multi year ice is a useful guide in this respect). As for the Kara and Laptev seas, my suspicion is that we are seeing an extension eastward of the warmer waters of the NwAC, leading to a thinning from below.
I thought the insurance companies’ release deserved more coverage…
Regards,
September 19, 2007 at 2:56 pm
fergusbrown
Hi, llewelly. I know where you are coming from; my mother became a ‘Jehovah’s Witness’ when I was 10 (no Christmases for 17 years after that!).
Do the people you describe really believe that a benificent God has chosen to create a world which is insufficient to the needs of its inhabitants, such that conflict is a necessary consequence of its inadequacy? Sounds a bit of a contradiction to me.
Out of interest, do you think these people have a belief that, since God’s will is to end things soon, a few murders here or there are of no consequence? It would be peculiar to think that some people may even feel that global warming is the manifestation of God’s coming judgement on man, and therefore to be embraced rather than resisted. Ugh!
I did say that I thought this was a plausibly universal goal of ‘rational people’. it is hard to account for the desires of irrational ones.
September 19, 2007 at 4:29 pm
guthrie
I was wondering about your statement:
“This brings up a long-standing ‘problem’ which science, in particular, has had to deal with; the question of whether the ’scientific’ approach to the world is in contradiction to the ‘religious’ (or, more broadly, faith-based) approach. In a country where argument still persists over the validity of ‘evolution’ vs. ‘intelligent design’, the conflict, which arose in the Middle Ages as a result of the introduction of Universities into Europe (which threatened the monopoly on learning then belonging to the Church), ”
Given that the universities were originally where the church trained people for a more intellectual life, and the absorption of Aristotelian views Greek philosophy in general in the 12th and 13th centuries, I would like to know what conflict you are talking about. Granted, there has been a continued secularisation, but that was underway by the 13th century, and I am pretty sure was outside the universities, insofar as it was the case that the church lost it’s monopoly on literacy.
September 19, 2007 at 5:48 pm
fergusbrown
Corrected; would it be enough to insert ‘secular’ in front of ‘universities’?, or have I just got it wrong? I was under the impression that it was the discussion of newly-rediscovered ideas (like Aristotle’s) in the universities which contributed to the development of the Renaissance, and the liberalisation of thought in Western Europe, and that this was not a development approved of by the Church. Perhaps rather than the ‘introduction’, I should have said the ‘liberalisation’.
The conflict I was getting at was the one between rational enquiry and the questioning of the authority of ‘truth’, against the unquestioning acceptance of rules, mores and standards imposed by virtue of Divine authority, by the ‘establishment’ of the time. In other words, of ‘doubt’ against ‘faith’.
September 20, 2007 at 10:50 am
guthrie
Well, bearing mind that my understanding of what is a rather complex area is currently incomplete (Come back in a couple of years), yes, Aristotle etc did contribute to the renaissance and the liberalisation of thought, but what I keep finding is that thought was far more liberal than people think it was. Catholicism changed a great deal between say 1100 and 1400 and even by 1500, and I wouldn’t really blame the universities for that. Remember Aristotle et al were looked upon with respect by the church, I seem to recall that by dante they had a part of hell for non-Christians who were unfortuante enough not to have heard the word due to being born at the wrong time. So (working it out as I go along), you could probably say the Greek ideas contributed to the liberalisation, even whilst being embraced by the church.
September 20, 2007 at 11:18 am
fergusbrown
The trouble with modern day History is that, just as you have worked it all out according to the books, a new version comes out which turns everything on its head. I blame Fukuyama, personally. So long as my post isn’t flat wrong, I’m content to let it be.
September 20, 2007 at 2:55 pm
llewelly
Some of them do believe that. Others actually seem to believe God provided plenty – and offer the ‘well, revelations predicted wars and famine anyway’ line only when they have been made uncomfortable by the evidence that our resources (with the near-exception of solar energy) are finite.
My experience (primarily among Mormons) is that severe contradictions are a normal part of religious belief.
September 20, 2007 at 3:06 pm
fergusbrown
Does this mean we are heading towards a conclusion that what I call ‘faith’ is inevitably irrational at some point, or is it just that people are irrational, and would rather ignore contradictions than attempt to deal with them?
September 24, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Michael Tobis
Wow. Much food for thought.
I have been dancing around the religion question for some time in my public writings.
I’m not entirely sure what’s being attributed to me in this discussion. Let me say a couple of things.
I think science is anathema to fundamentalism, but consistent with religion. I think all the science bloggers attacking religion would do much better to take on fundamentalism.
God as I understand God does not compose users’ manuals for reality, never mind depositing them in ancient societies whose language cannot possibly have words for some of the issues we face.
It’s impossible to have democracy and progress and dogma coexist. I think we can’t survive without progress at this point, so I’d rather sacrifice dogma than democracy.
On the other side of the question is whether science “shares values” with religion. This is very problematic. Science as usually formally construed by scientists has only one value, that is the emergence of objective truth. The process is necessarily value neutral.
That doesn’t mean scientists themselves need to be so narrow, and indeed I feel to the contrary that scientists have ethical obligations beyond those of the scientific process itself. Nevertheless, I am very uncomfortable with the title of this essay.
best
mt
September 24, 2007 at 10:09 pm
fergusbrown
Hi Michael,
It is important to note that i am referring here to goals and not to values; there’s a lot of difference. Also, I was thinking of one primary goal in particular, that of the preservation of life. Not the precautionary principle, but the ethics of responsibility.
All I was attributing to you was the phrase which I think is telling; ‘how do we manage the Earth’s resources?’ There was no intention of suggesting that you had any views on the rest of the subject, though I know you have an interest.
llewelly raises the challenging question of whether I am even right in assuming that most people of faith (and I will single out Christianity as the one I know best, but this applies to others, too) agree with the principle, which is a bit of a shock to me; it seems entirely contrary to the basic tenets of all faiths that I know to deny the moral significance of life, though I undersatnd that some fundamentalists do exactly this, which is evidence not of their faith, but of their dishonesty about their own claimed religious foundations.
It could be argued that one of the primary goals of some religions is also the truth, though in their case, the truth ‘as revealed’, rather than ‘as discovered/uncovered’.
I think the scientists who attack religion are doing so from a standpoint of modern ‘Humanism’, which sees religion/faith as merely superstition, and the source of confusion and doubt, in particular, one of the key obstructions to the goals of Humanism, which include the furtherance of rationality and the ending of persecution.
I am sort of sorry that you feel uncomfortable, but at the same time, perhaps it is this discomfort which has stimulated your thought.
My main message in this post should be clear: inasmuch as Christianity, Buddhism, whichever Faith you care to mention, claims to hold to the principle of the sanctity of life and the moral duty/responsibility to preserve life, these faiths have the same goal as climate science, which, beyond informing our understanding, is doing so in a context of considering the future consequences of our present actions. Hence, climate science is, as things stand, an activity which impinges upon morality, and therefore on the lives of the public, in an unusual and very important way.
September 24, 2007 at 11:52 pm
fergusbrown
And just as it goes quiet, we find this: http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2007/09/in_trip_to_us_pope_makes_clima.php
Well I never… 🙂