Skeptical scientists approaching religion on common ground of earth stewardship

Background/Question/Methods

Science and religion are similar in that they explanatory stories. They differ in that science uses facts to assemble theories that are always subject to revision, rejection and replacement, while religion accumulates explanations unconstrained and subject to change only through interpretation, not through the necessary accumulation of new facts.  Both coexist and both provide frameworks for understanding and of explaining, as well as establishing practitioners’ worldviews and approaches. They also interact. For instance, evolutionary biologists are investigating morality and religion as culturally evolved adaptations. Cognitive scientists are searching for neural foundations undergirding moral decision-making, religious belief and practice.  About one third of practicising scientists believe in God and half have religious affiliations. Yet, antagonism exists. Hume’s focus on passion as driving moral judgment and Kant’s emphasis on reason is often cited as a central divide, but more recent antagonism centers on blaming religion or secularism for our current environmental problems.  Almost fifty years ago, White's charge that Christianity was the underlying cause of our ecological crisis, prompted materialistic and secular counter charges.  Few of the series of charges or refutations has moved us toward solutions—largely because most were incorrectly aimed and framed.  

Results/Conclusions

Those of religious persuasion and secularist identity involved in dealing with stewardship issues need to shift from extrospective blame and introspective reanalysis to identification of common concerns and establishment of common ground—and then collaborating to achieve practical political solutions.  Attitude changes aren’t a necessary prerequisite to shifts in the requisite political and economic drivers. For instance, major factors preventing effective environmental change could include issues such as the need to remove legal recognition of corporations as persons, the need to incorporate externalities in business bottom lines and the need to implement mechanisms to limit carbon emissions. To effectively address these requires political change—and this requires coordinated mobilization across many groups.  This, in turn, requires moving past historical tension and difference, putting skepticism aside to recognize common ground and to effectively collaborate.