A X-Mas Goracle
In an editorial in the latest issue of the journal Climatic Change, Simon Donner argues that scientists need to join with religious leaders in communicating the urgency of climate change. Donner is an assistant professor of Geography at the University of British Columbia. His research focuses on climate change, coral reefs, and nutrient cycling.
Following the lead of older avant-garde communicators such as Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson and EO Wilson, Donner is one of many among a new generation of scientists who recognize that a paradigm shift is needed for engaging the public. Part of this new paradigm involves collaboration with religious leaders in framing shared common values rather than engaging in a campaign of attacks and insults. More on this paradigm shift in communication will be discussed this February at the panel on the topic at the annual AAAS meetings in Boston.
Here is how Donner powerfully closes his essay:
The true communications challenge facing climate scientists, educators and policy-makers is time. Aggressive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions could need to begin in the next decade to avoid "dangerous anthropogenic interference" in the climate system, like
the collapse of major ice sheets, shifts in ocean circulation and the widespread degradation
of coral reefs (e.g., O'Neill and Oppenheimer 2002). Garnering strong public and political support for any substantial near-term action is requiring society to adapt beliefs held relatively constant for millennia in a matter of years.This is one example where scientific community may need to work with theologians and philosophers. Many leaders in the Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist and Islamic community recognize the possible threat posed by human-induced climate change and are actively working to reconcile understanding of climate change with their belief systems (Schut and Barnett 2005).
The influential Christian evangelical movement in the USA recently began a campaign to educate followers about the need for action on climate change (Hagg 2006). Scientists should not be afraid to embrace religious or philosophical initiatives to address the fundamental understanding of the human relationship with the climate. Otherwise, future historians may conclude that a failure to confront questions of belief, rather than questions of economics, explains the failure of our generation to act in time.
- Log in to post comments
Following the lead of older avant-garde communicators such as Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson and EO Wilson, Donner is one of many among a new generation of scientists who recognize that a paradigm shift is needed for engaging the public. Part of this new paradigm involves collaboration with religious leaders in framing shared common values rather than engaging in a campaign of attacks and insults. More on this paradigm shift in communication will be discussed this February at the panel on the topic at the annual AAAS meetings in Boston.
This is an excellent post! As someone in both the Christian and science camp I see the conflicts and think there has to be some way of improving the situation. It is great to see people willing to work on it! I love this blog! People being devoted to working on finding better ways to convey the science to those it will help can be an altruistic undertaking.
I find most Christians agreeing with me when I ask, aren't we supposed to love and respect everyone? But them I see too many of them who say, unless it is a scientist talking about evolution! For the sake of peace and mutually beneficial progress for both camps I sincerely apologize to anyone who was treated with less than love and respect from a Christian. I also ask you to pity them and build a tolerance for their ignorance without feeling you have to strike back or bring them around to your way of thinking all at once.
I have written pages and pages about the marvelous benefits that science has brought us over the centuries. It is too bad that someone with a revolutionary breakthrough has to deal with fallible human beings in order to present their great gift to humanity, but I think that is the way it has always been.
Someone has to be willing to turn the other cheek, and I think the one who does proves they are the better person for it inevitably, and that fact is proven out to everyone over time. Thank you very much and happy weekend!
Dave Briggs :~)
I also applaud this post. Scientists could also make a little effort to reconcile with the religious, as long as the religious are willing to meet us halfway.
The essay is not just about religion, but about taking the long view when communicating climate change. The separation between the earth (domain of humans) and sky (domain of the gods) is enshrined in every belief system, whether the current major religions, ancient religions or traditional / animist systems. Thousands of years of belief (that the sky or climate is out of human control is hard to change) regardless of how overwhelming the scientific evidence that humans are changing the climate is.
The upshot, explained in this post, is that scientists may need to work with cultural or religious leaders to effectively communicate the urgency of climate change. That conclusion is not an endorsement of any or all religions (surely I could not lecture effectively about climate change along with someone that does not believe in evolution, nor would I want to). It is simply a reasonable strategy under the circumstances.
An effective working relationship between scientists and religious leaders is a priority, to be sure. The obstacles to be overcome require that we pay attention to our rhetoric and understand the symbolic worlds in which those we wish to convince live. Belittling others is possibly the least effective rhetorical strategy available. I take it as a sign of hope that the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope both addressed environmental issues in their Christmas addresses. The faithful can be persuaded, and the advocacy of their leaders is a crucial tool.
Maybe this is where they could meet.
http://perthworst.wordpress.com/2007/12/27/science-fiction/
Why don't we have the religious leaders joining the scientists, instead? After all, the scientists are the one calling the warning.
Religions are also far more ontologically flexible than staid ol' science.
Darned scientists, attacking and insulting religion!
And now the whole planet will be destroyed unless the scientists "join with" the benevolent, concerned churchy people!
Same old shit. These people are like cartoon villains, willing to exploit each and every emergency to gain ground for THEIR ideology.
Sure, we have this problem. And it's a big one. But behind the problem is the causative blight of several thousand years of fuzzy thinking.
And here it is again, with the addition of this catchy exploitative angle: We can only solve this dire problem if we all work together under the wise, benevolent leadership of Team Jesus!
So yeah, all you scientists, you just give up that silly "reason" business and walk into the nearest church to volunteer. "Join with" them. Hey, it's for Earth, right?
If you don't "join with" them, you selfish scientific bastards, what happens next is all YOUR fault.
Interestingly, something happened today that shows the folly of scientists trying to make nice with religion.
Notwithstanding some reservations, I signed up about 6 months ago with something called the 'Clergy Letter Project', an attempt to link pro-evolution clergy up with scientists who could from a knowledge resource. Today, I got an email from Michael Zimmerman, the director of the project, to say they were handing out 75 free copies of Denyse O leary/Mario Beauregard's The Spiritual Brain. For the few of you who aren't familiar with her, O Leary, along with Dembski, runs Uncommon Descent, and is a leading and vocal creationist. of course I, and several others, pointed this out to Zimmerman, along with some substantial scientific criticisms of the book.
Zimmerman's rather lame response was " It is my belief that we learn the most when we read things that make us uncomfortable. The Spiritual Brain may make some of you uncomfortable. Some of the science in it, Ive now learned, is questionable, as is some of the theology. But if read carefully, it should help people better understand what the evolution/creation battle is about and it should help demonstrate how pervasive creationist and anti-scientific arguments have become."
Ultimately, the goal of theists is religious conversion. They are interested not in furthering science but in co-opting it. A book like 'The Spiritual Brain' shows their agenda; if they find something that appears to further their belief system, skepticism is the first thing to go out the window. That's why efforts like that proposed above are ultimately misguided. In the end, there will always be a conflict between religion and science, and papering over the cracks does not help the side with the stronger case. And that would be the scientific side.
One defining strength of a scientist is his ability to live with uncertainty. It should not then be necessary for that scientist to first require a similar lack of certainty to be professed by any person or group that would like to benefit from what all of them can agree is at least a probability.
The co-operation of science and religion in raising awareness of climate change has frequently featured in the programme of Christians in Science: http://www.cis.org.uk/
People such as Bob White FRS and Sir John Houghton (former chair of the scientific wrorking group of the IPCC) have worked particularly hard in this area. More details can be found on the website at http://www.cis.org.uk/resources/articles/environment.shtml
Hopefully we can work together to tackle this issue
What is called "scientists" in this article are actually religious bigots themselves. This call is just a call to unify several fundamentalist branches of religion.
Real scientists care about learning how Nature works, certainly not about mad political projects to globally regulate carbon for the prize of deindustrialization or something like that.
Take a look at books like "Brother Astronomer" and "God's Mechanics" to see how religion and science can work together.
(And a silly thought. Maybe calling it "Christmas", as in "At Christmas, A Call for Scientists..." would be more appropriate if you are trying to "work together"?)
How can anyone who believes in God not also accept that global warming is part of His plan?? When mankind dies off it will usher in the era of the super-evolved cockroach - his chosen being, that we were put on earth to immanentize!
Well, if you can't beat 'em, co-opt 'em. If cosying up to "religious leaders" is what it takes to avert major ecological disaster (and where, pray, will our precious industrialised economy be then?), so be it. However, CO2 is only a part of the overall picture - loss of the biodiversity buffer, habitat destruction, desertification etc are all functions of the elephant in the room - rapidly expanding human population. If we can get the "religious leaders" to promote voluntary population control, we might stave things off before the automatic systems of war, famine, disease & pestilence kick in. In 50 years time the Earth will have over 10 billion of us shitting all over it, and things are going to get very uncomfortable, even in the absence of further global warming. Maybe that truth is the most inconvenient of them all.
Amenhotep, it seems to me that people who believe an all-powerful, all-knowing "planner" is responsible for everything are incapable of imagining that there's any problem he can't fix.
They're less motivated to do anything themselves, because they imagine this benevolent superbeing will pull off a miracle at the last minute.
From what I've seen, "population control" and "god" don't seem to be able to fit in the same brain.
I have never in my life heard a religious voice speak about reproduction in any way except to say that more is better: "Be fruitful and multiply." The idea of limits just can't seem to occur to them.
If you find someone who is against birth control, contraceptives, condoms, family planning, sex education, and abortion, that person is invariably strongly religious.
If you think those people -- some of whom give every appearance of being unreasoning fanatics -- can radically change course so as to become part of the solution, dream on.
Hank, I wish I could disagree with you, but I can't. However, I've found that dismantling the religion brain-bomb is next-to-impossible, and at least getting them to keep the damn place tidy might be a more achievable medium term goal. [I could be completely wrong of course, but I think we need to broaden our strategic options]
Yeah, their god said "be fruitful & multiply; fill the earth" and all that jazz. Well, it's bloody full now. So now what? Be a bit less fruitful, and *subtract*, dammit!
What the environmentalist says: "Simple mathematics shows that continued population growth is unsustainable. Even at the current level of population, resource exaustion is going to become a major problem within the next century. Growth must be bought under control on a global scale to prevent irreversable environmental damage and a humanitarian crisis."
What the religious/political-conservative hears: "I hate children, because children damage precious plants and kill animals. We need to kill a lot of children before they can even be born, or else many trees and animals are going to die. I like trees. Trees are more important than humans. The world would be a better place if humans were extinct."
"The world would be a better place if humans were extinct."
Hahaha. Now that's what I call scientific! That must have taken a lot of double-blind studies full of Earths with humans against a suitably sized control group of Earths without humans (with all other factors carefully regulated to cancel each other, of course).
Actually, here's my take: It ain't about getting the world's huge institutions to suddenly get it right and make all best-friend-like.
It's about people co-operating with each other to get the problem solved. You don't like global warming and pollution? Roll up your sleeves, start or join a group of people who are doing effective things to solve the problem, and forget about what religion they are, what color their skin is, or what country they came from, and focus and solve the problems you decide to tackle.
If the Pope can't get it together to help clean the planet, then stop waiting for him. Put down the Richard Dawkins book and go out, connect with some people who can work in a team to solve a problem, and get going on it.
The very fact that you think you have to wait until Dawkins and the Pope have a love-in is part of the problem.
I say drop your BS and whining about religion and race, and get the work done.
IMHO, the Church isn't the biggest obstacle. Big Oil and Big Oil infrastructure providers such as Bechtel and Halliburton, and big investors in fossil energy like the Carlyle Group and the Bush Family, and certain corrupt governments sitting atop huge oil reserves (Saudi Arabia et al), those are the obstacles.
If Big Oil and the Bushies had gotten on board when they should have, you would see great progress.
There's plenty of Christyians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and Athiests who want to clean up our planet and our lifestyle. I don't care if you are a Pastafarian who worships the Flying Spaghetti Monster - I'll walk by your side and pick trash up off the beach with you or anyone else who is willing and able to do the work.