No, I’m not trying to cause trouble. And let me say quite emphatically at the outset that I’m not trying to start a debate about global warming (at least at the moment). But I can’t help thinking that there is something deeper going on in the global warming brouhaha (I always enjoy using that word)—something more than science—something ideological, emotional or even religious.
I get this feeling every time I observe interactions between the large majority of scientists (who take what is now regarded as the orthodox view of climate change) and the small minority who hold a different view. Actually, there are three positions I’ve observed, not two, among scientists who are in a position to know something about the data. There is the overwhelmingly dominant view that human-induced climate change is real and very serious, and if that we don’t take serious steps over the next decade or two, then we are in for some very nasty consequences come 2050 and beyond. To the ‘left’ of this majority view is a minority who think that things are actually even worse, that catastrophic consequences are but a matter of years away, and that utterly drastic action is required and now. Well-known Australian author Tim Flannery would be in this category. To the ‘right’ of the majority is the sceptical minority of scientists who acknowledge that warming is happening, and that it is human-induced to a significant extent, but who do not think that it constitutes nearly as big a problem as the majority view maintains, and who think that many of the proposed solutions (such as the Kyoto Protocol) are a bad idea. Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences at MIT, is among those who hold this view.
Now differences of opinion among scientists are normal and to be expected, and vigorous debate among scientists is the rule, not the exception. Science is not an abstract entity; it is an acitivity of people, and people interpret data differently, bring different assumptions to the table, and make different judgements. People change their mind, or make new discoveries, or make new connections between previously disparate facts.
Science, then, is always changing, shifting and re-evaluating according to new discoveries, new data and new interpretations of the data. It does not appeal to an outside entity (like God or some authority) for the final word. There is always new ground to be broken, and no hypothesis is immune from questioning and re-evaluation. In fact, the motto of The Royal Society (the UK’s national academy of science, and one of the oldest scientific organizations in the world) is Nullius in Verba: “nobody’s word is final”.
It is highly interesting, then, that a pamphlet put out by the Royal Society on ‘Climate Change Controversies’ says this:
This is not intended to provide exhaustive answers to every contentious argument that has been put forward by those who seek to distort and undermine the science of climate change and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of global warming.
It sounds rather like The Royal Society’s word is final, and that those who hold a different view are enemies of science, only seeking to distort and undermine.
I came across this example in a fascinating article by Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson, writing in a recent edition of The New York Review of Books. In Dyson’s experience, any scientist who dares to dissent from the prevailing orthodoxy is treated as having apostasized or betrayed science. Any dialogue between these two views seems impossible:
Their conversation is a dialogue of the deaf. The majority responds to the minority with open contempt.
Even more interestingly, Dyson goes on to suggest that there is much more than ‘science’ going on here:
All the books that I have seen about the science and economics of global warming, including the two books under review, miss the main point. The main point is religious rather than scientific. There is a worldwide secular religion which we may call environmentalism, holding that we are stewards of the earth, that despoiling the planet with waste products of our luxurious living is a sin, and that the path of righteousness is to live as frugally as possible. The ethics of environmentalism are being taught to children in kindergartens, schools, and colleges all over the world.
Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion …
Unfortunately, some members of the environmental movement have also adopted as an article of faith the belief that global warming is the greatest threat to the ecology of our planet. That is one reason why the arguments about global warming have become bitter and passionate.
This is an important perspective, and one that I haven’t heard discussed at any length. Most religious or theological responses to global warming focus on how we might respond to the problem (as those whom God has put in charge of his world, and so on). But what of the secular religion of environmentalism, and its place in driving the debate and our response to it? And what effect do these deeper ideological and philosophical factors have on the way that the debate unfolds? For example, it is interesting how often we hear the phrase “the science is settled”, as if no further debate or investigation is allowed, nor any other view remotely possible. Is the science ever settled? I thought that “nobody’s word is final”.
I can’t help feeling that the extraordinary passion with which the majority view is embraced and defended by scientists has something to do with science seeking to reclaim its mantle as the saviour of the world. The modern positivist view of science took a took a beating in the latter half of the 20th century—not only from events as they unfolded, but from the postmodern philosophy that accompanied them. Does science want to see itself once again as that glorious army of men in white coats who will save the planet? Or are we simply witnessing the coming of age of environmentalism as the secular mainstream religion of our day?
This was a really helpful perspective for me. Obviously this is a topic that comes up in conversations quite often because of how much we try to do to reduce our “carbon footprint.” Well written, thanks.
Hi Tony
Thanks for your article, very intriguing food for thought.
The great tragedy I see that comes from secular religion especially environmentalism is how it lacks the ability to solve the greatest and deepest problems of life. I mean even if we save the world from global warming, how can environmentalism save the world from sin and death? Cancer, old age, selfishness, war and greed will not be addressed and fixed by a scientific solution but by a change of the heart.
Whilst Environmentalism is followed like a religion its followers don’t realise this world will pass away. Environmentalism is a band aid solution. It will protect us for a while but eventually will be seen as ineffective, will fall off and be thrown out. We should be careful and wise stewards of our world, that is important but our world has a much greater problem of sin and death which needs to be our focus. Thanks be to God that through the Lord Jesus we have a solution for our greatest problem of all!
Soli Deo Gloria
Hi Tony,
Apologies for the longish post…
As a greenie with some experience of hanging out with greenies, there’s much I have to agree with here. With the collapse of Marxist or Socialist respectability as a cause, and and with a need for a “personal mission statement” to replace the great yawning chasm in which post-modern Australians often finds themselves, the green movement — especially global warming — has taken on almost “spiritual” significance.
However, I guess the one thing I have to disagree with is the suggestion that Global Warming is taking on a religious nature because of the passion with which scientists hold the “basic tenets”.
The difference is that while some greenies might have a knee-jerk reaction out of “religious conviction”, the professional climatologist is tired of the same old invalid straw man argument being put forward by the sceptics. Yes science is inherently sceptical and asking questions and trying to move forward. The word is not “final”. But at the same time there is a peer-review process that will soundly spank silliness. This is why we don’t have peer reviewed papers suggesting the world is flat. Trying to do so by arguing that “science is not a democracy” and “my idea does not need a consensus” will fall on deaf ears when the paper is poppycock.
So while there is some debate about “how bad” global warming will be, it is wise to always check the credentials, the peer review status of a sceptic’s argument, and whether that argument has been seriously rebutted and debunked on a number of previous occasions. Because as the CBC’s “Denial Machine” documented, some of these sceptics have a “religious intensity” to their scepticism which is largely born of funding from Exxon.
There also comes a point where the science is overwhelming enough that us non-experts could actually be demonstrating arrogance or silliness of our own to attempt to deny it. As Andrew Cameron writes, “How sceptical is too sceptical?”
In that case, climate change becomes yet another of the many social responsibilities for us to consider as we carry on with our main task of sharing Jesus with a world that needs Him.
Now for a personal plea to readers. Please remember that many Aussies are losing hope in the face of climate fear. I’ve met many greenies in my own activism journey, and many seem to be sad hopeless people genuinely fearing for the lives of their children and grandchildren. They are often thinking or “spiritual” people, wanting to experience something deeper than the McDonalds McMovie McLife of the western world.
They are crying out for the gospel. I’ve been in rooms with politicians and activists discussing this stuff, and the conversation VERY quickly turns to questions of ultimate meaning. It would be great if there were better evangelists than myself placed in these “environments” (pardon the pun).
Cheers, great topic, and on a final final note, yes, you do have a gift for ordering the right amount of take away! (winks)
G’day Tony,
I think you hit the nail on the head… ” the science of climate change” is probably the key word there. “..science seeking to reclaim its mantle as the saviour of the world.” The empiricism that is so highly valued as “the scientific method” which values knowledge as power, and views technology as the prized product is the very thing that has caused the climate issue, and now seeks to be its saviour.
This empiricism has claimed sole rights in epistimology, so that worship at the altar of scientism is the required solution for all problems.
Sadly, Worship of the One true God has been displaced, and viewed as “iirelevant” due to this dominant epistimology taught from infancy in school, home and media.
Assertion of the Sovereignty of God and responsibility of man has never been more needed.
(Romans 1:18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.)
Active proclamation (a presuppositional apologetic) is challenge for challenging the epistemic dominance of empiricism.
Thank you Tony, you have written an encouraging and challenging article.
Steve
Tony, thanks for raising an important contemporary issue.
I recently gave a sermon on “Gaia” as part of a series at church on “Australian idols”. My conclusion: that once we stop treating the environment as a god through ritualistic/tokenistic practices to assuage our fear and guilt, we are liberated to take the major challenges facing our society <i>more</i> seriously out of love for neighbour. In other words, perhaps <i>Gaia</i> is an idol that actually functions <i>minimise</i> our care for God’s world through focusing on <i>my</i> guilt and fear. The cross and resurrection are the only truly good news for those trapped in fear and guilt. Loving God (partially) by loving our neighbour is the only true and living way. Only a community motivated by love (rather than fear or guilt) and upheld by resurrection hope can sustain a wise and vigorous response that does not grab hold of the first solution offered.
Brendan – do you think that the failure of a particular science to solve the deeper problems of life makes the pursuit of partial, temporary solutions (or improvements) futile? I for one am glad that oncology has been able to treat my cancer and prolong my life, even though I will still die at some point. I agree that the pursuit of the partial as though it were the whole is destructive idolatry, but isn’t there a good and important place for an environmental concern and activism that knows it is only part of life?
PS I’m with Dave regarding the possibility of a “sound spanking of silliness” that does not require a claim to be speaking a final word.
Oooh, oooh, oooh, I nearly forgot!
Freeman Dyson is also the guy who invented downplays the seriousness… could that be because he has a “religious agenda” of his own?
He’s a techno-optimist with an almost religious zeal for the success of future technology. So while he appears sympathetic to Christianity, are we going to completely discount his own biases in favour of progress and a future techno-utopia?
Couple of thoughts here…
1. Could the zealousness of climate change believers actually be born out of the seriousness of the problem rather than their needs for a religious cause? Certainly if we are in danger, I think it’s good that people with the know-how are thinking of solutions and bringing it all to our attention.
2. That environmentalism is a religion is not news. People have always replaced the creator with creation, that’s the very diffinition of idolatry. But I have noticed some right-leaning christians using this, along with the observation that there are a number of conflicting views, an an excuse to practically dismiss the issue all together. Just because ‘nobody’s word is final’ doesn’t mean ‘we can all be apathetic’.
3. If we view this issue as we do other forms of idolatry, as a good thing elevated beyond its position, then in and of itself envirnomentalism is still a <i>good thing</i>. The key question here is knowing the boundary between healthy and responsible involvement and enviro-worship.
4. For people who are not experts, the consensus of those who are needs to count for something. That’s why they are experts, to serve us with their specialist knowledge.
A key topic for our culture, keep the thoughts coming!
<i>diffinition</i>??
hopeless…
Thanks one and all for the fascinating and useful comments, and sorry for the slow response!
Yes, Martin, extreme danger would be a good reason for zealousness, and it might make one impatient of anyone questioning the danger. And yes, silliness can get the slapping down it deserves. But I don’t think that either of these caveats justifies or explains the silencing of serious objections or alternative views from other scientists (and I note, Dave L, that you went ad hominem on Dyson and not the MIT professor of atmospheric sciences!)
I wasn’t wanting to buy into any particular side of the argument, but to make some observations about how the argument was (or perhaps wasn’t) progressing.
Hey Tony, I wasn’t attacking Dyson… I hope we do end up building Dyson sphere’s, that would be way cool.
But I was just pointing out that while a very smart cookie he’s not a climatologist, and might be a bit prone to techno-utopian aspirations as well.
On the other hand, I did warn of “scepticism which is largely born of funding from Exxon.” Sadly Richard Lindzen’s wiki bears this out.
Dr Karl said he is not aware of any <i>serious peer reviewed</i> attacks on global warming for the past 20 years, so unless you’re saying the peer review process itself is corrupt, I’m not sure that the scientific community suffers from the same “religious zeal” silencing <i>genuine</i> debate that you are describing.
From what I’ve read, even the likes of Tim Flannery will admit when they are uncertain over certain dimensions of the crisis — but that there is one seems uniform. And I’m sure Flannery would be only too delighted if some absolutely new climate mechanism we discovered suddenly made all the concerns vanish. Many would breath a sigh of relief, mutter how serious the whole thing had looked but now they know XYZ isn’t that a relief?…and go home.
In that case we’d be left with the fact that we simply have to ration fossil fuels because we are fast running out of the stuff, but that’s another story.
Hi Byron
I am all for science, I think it is useful and helpful. The point i was trying to make (and i see that i didn’t phrase it eliquently but that presented it fuzzily) is that we put to strong an emphasis on science. It can cure some things but the deepest most important things it will never be able to cure, not permanently. Science can cure cancer but than something else will destroy us. Science can solve many problems but all the problems it solves are but temporary solutions. Actually a member of my family is a staunch evironmentalist. He wants to save the world but doesn’t realise that whilst saving the world from pollution is important this doesn’t bring a permanent solution. We live in a world that is so obseesed with the material and external that it has forgotten that the external is temporary. I am all for success within science and medicine provided it is not at the expense of knowing Jesus.
Hi Brendan,
why is there conflict?
Why can’t the church — with all its great variety of people and talents and minds — have theologians that investigate this stuff for us? Andrew Cameron has written some fantastic summary pieces that should be enough for busy Christians to work with. (Not everyone has the time for Tim Flannery’s book, although it’s an important first step for those wishing to become informed).
Then Christians might be more informed and have a rough idea how to think, vote, and biblically respond to such issues.
Now if only there was a magazine periodical that might gather up a few of the latest theological responses to climate change, investigate whether or not society is being brainwashed or on the other hand, is being “too sceptical”, and maybe report it to us in some kind of ‘brief’ format?