Why wouldn't the world benefit from an alliance between science and those forms of religion that regard the stewardship of the earth as a moral obligation? Indeed, the preservation of the environment for future generations is both a moral and a practical necessity--something that intelligent, decent people of any faith or no faith can and must recognize. If we fail to rise to the challenge, we will cease to exist as a species.
Philosophical questions about the ultimate compatibility of science and religion are really irrelevant here. At some point, faith always accepts the supernatural in ways that evidence-based science does not, but that certainly poses no barrier to cooperation between science and religions that also embrace secular knowledge. The broadest possible participation is necessary if we are to save our planet from the dangers of global warming; the heedless use of toxins associated with rapid industrialization (China being one of the prime examples); and, above all, our own greed.
I should point out that religion, or the absence of religion, has little to do with the willingness of people around the world to face up to this global crisis. No administration in recent history has trumpeted its faith in God more strongly than the Bush administration, and no administration has authorized more disastrous policies regarding the environment. Some of the most prominent anti-environmentalists in right-wing think tanks, by contrast, are completely secular in their economic and political views, and their only interest is in maximizing corporate profits. The planet be damned.
Thus, the conflict over environmental policies has little to do with religion, or the lack of religion, per se. It has everything to do with our willingness, or unwillingness, to sacrifice a certain amount of short-term comfort and profit for long-term good. On this issue, secular, evidence-oriented American organizations like the Center for Inquiry Transnational should work with scientific groups and with religious organizations that are committed to educating the public about the sacrifices needed to save our world. (Full disclosure: I am a consultant on public programming for the Center for Inquiry's New York City branch.)
Of course all such efforts must be global, but I emphasize America's responsibility precisely because we are the world's richest nation (still). If you're willing to stop driving obscene gas-guzzling SUVs, why should I care if you believe that the Bible is literally true? (Although, come to think of it, the Bible has nothing to say about SUVs.) If I'm willing to spend money on the prevention of diseases caused by toxic environmental factors, why should you care if I don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead? If you believe in an afterlife and I don't, there's still this world to be saved. We can agree on that. We can work together toward that goal.
A final thought: war, including religious violence, is the deadly enemy of all attempts to focus on environmental challenges. When I think of the energy devoted to terrorism in countries so poor that children die for lack of clean water, and when I think of the billions that the United States has poured into the war in Iraq when the same money could be spent on health care and cleaning up the environmental mess we have created, I could weep.
If we don't all get our act together, we will surely have hell on earth. And we won't have to wait for Armageddon to experience it.
Please e-mail On Faith if you'd like to receive an email notification when On Faith sends out a new question.
Email Me | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
