I have often wondered why it is that so many religious people disbelieve that global warming is actually a problem caused by human activity even though an overwhelming amount of evidence has been given to warrant that proposition.  I cannot get myself to accept that the answer lies simply in partisan politics: that so many environmentalists tend to be politically liberal and so many religious tend to be politically conservative.  Perhaps that political statistic alone is enough to skew the simple mind of some adherents to religion, but not to the vast majority of religious people who hold such a view.  It is no secret that politicians are not above using anything, no matter how important or vital it is, even if that thing is important and vital to the survival of a species (human included).  Many religious people that I have talked to claim that global warming is simply a business venture set up by “the liberals”: while absolutely possible and probable, this proposition does not explain the good science behind the theory that global warming is being directly influenced by human activity.  That being said, I believe that there is something else at play here: the incredulity that the religious have with environmental issues is directly related to their credulity in regard to their religious belief.

           At the basis of religious belief is the fallacy of ignorance.  The fallacy of ignorance is wrong-reasoning based on the proposition that:

You do not know that I am wrong,

I want to be right, and might be right. 

Therefore, I am right. 

 

The problem is the huge leap from “might” to “am”.  Historically, religion has relied upon such reasoning from the explanation of disease to the explanation of the universe: because these things could not be explained, religion’s concocted explanations were to be accepted on the authority of “God”, a concept that in the end was based on the very same fallacy.  In regard to global warming and other environmental issues, the religious right seems to change its credulity to incredulity, but the fallacy used by them remains the same. It might go something like this:

I do not know that you are right,

I want you to be wrong, and you might be wrong. 

Therefore, you are wrong. 

 

Either way the logic does not work.  While the decision to disregard scientific evidence might be politically motivated, I believe that the ability to accept such logic is only possible because of religious belief.  Religion condones bad reasoning because it must condone bad reasoning.  Otherwise, its own edicts crumble.

Here’s a little story:

           One afternoon your child comes home with a note from school.  It reads: “We have reason to believe that a gunman might be at the school tomorrow”.  You decide to send your child to school the next day, anyway.  Your child comes home and you ask him if there were any problems.  He answers that there were no problems, but has another note sent by the school.  It reads: “We have found out that a teacher that we unfortunately had to fire has become disgruntled and was seen buying a gun yesterday.” This worries you, but you decide to send your child to school the next day.  The third day, your child comes home and you ask him about school.  He says there was a little commotion during the afternoon, and hands you a note.  It reads: “Unfortunately we have found a sub-machine gun hidden in the library together with some shells, and have traced it to the disgruntled teacher whounfortunately cannot be found.”  It does not say anything about what was done with the gun or the shells.  You call the school and ask what they are doing about this possible problem and they answer, “gathering information.”  You send your child to school the next day. 

Your child comes home early from school and hands you a note.  You ask why he’s home early and he tells you that there was some more “stuff” going on, and eats his afternoon cookie after handing you yet another note.  This note reads: “Gun shots were heard at the school today, but no one was shot.  School was let out early for a teacher’s work day.” You ponder this note and throw it in the trash.  Calling the school you find out that they had left the gun and the shells in the library and were still “gathering information.”  You send your child to school the next day.  Your child comes home with another note from the school.  It reads: “Shots fired at the kindergarten class today during recess.  Three squirrels found dead under the jungle gym, and one child wounded.  Shells and gun found in the library, but no gunman.”  You ask your child how school was and he answers fine, except that recess was cut short.  You send him to school the next day.  A few days later, you hear that several children were shot, but the gunman is still at large…  This goes on ad infinitum: The End.  

            Given this scenario, it seems obvious what any parent in their right mind would do, but given the bad reasoning of those that claim that global warming is nothing but a farce and a fake put up by “liberals” to attack “the American way of life”, the child is continually sent back to school.  As long as a gunman is not found, the chances of their being gun fire at the school is probable but not certain.  This is what is being argued by those who oppose action against global warming.

            First, what must be understood is the nature of science: probability.  Probability by its very nature lacks certainty.  In fact, in scientific enquiry certainty is dangerous.  Let’s say that that a scientist has an idea, and that idea becomes the center of his hypothesis. If that idea is proven wrong then the scientist’s hypothesis falls apart.  Unfortunately, this may mean that the scientist is left with nothing.  So, sometimes  bad scientists  have resorted to deceptive measures to protect their interests. Fortunately, science in any form (to be considered respectable) must be open to peer-review and made public as well.  There are no secrets in good science, and so bad scientists tend to become viewed as such.  In this way, good science is able to grow and because it is able to grow by its very nature lacks certainty.

            On the other hand, religious belief, and science motivated by religious belief, is based on certainty: the certainty that the universe is created and has purpose and meaning.  Because religious belief is based on certainty, probability is never enough.  This is precisely why religion and science will never be the bedfellows that so many claim that they can.  In the scenario above, no matter how probable it is that there is a gunman shooting at the school, it can never be certain as long as a gunman cannot be found.  The credulity that allows religious people to believe religious doctrine and dogma on nothing more than faith is precisely the same thing that allows them to disregard the scientific probability that global warming is a serious problem: their credulity is based in certainty.

            Environmentalists are often demonized by the religious right because they rely upon scientific probability rather than religious certainty not because of the truth or false nature of their claims, but because of the scientific nature of their claims.  However, the probabilistic claims themselves are never accepted because of the demand for religious certainty: a demand based on the fallacy of ignorance, in one or another of its forms.  Credulity based on certainty becomes the basis for incredulity concerning uncertainty.  What is being passed over either consciously or inadvertently by religious peoples is that science by its very nature is probabilistic rather than certain. One cannot get blood from a turnip, and one cannot expect rationality from anyone who defines the world in religiously certain terms. The environmentalists are often portrayed as “evil” because they are rational rather than religious: they act on science rather than credulity.  Unfortunately, if religion is continually allowed free play in societies and science, there is only one thing that is certain, and that by all definitions is certainly not good.