Are religious people reliable allies on the environment?

Evolutionary biologist E. O. Wilson gave Case Western Reserve University’s annual Distinguished Lecture on March 3, 2009 in Severance Hall, the magnificent building where the equally magnificent Cleveland Orchestra plays, was packed for the occasion. It seemed to underscore the community’s support for, at least interest in, the theory of evolution.

I had read Wilson’s book Consilience; The Unity of Knowledge (1998) in which he urges that we should seek the unity of knowledge, starting with looking for the biological basis of human nature and behavior. Although his talk did not deal with this particular topic (being instead a more general talk about Charles Darwin and his work) I did get to meet him the next day as part of a small group and to discuss some of those ideas.

After his public lecture and in the small group discussion, the inevitable question came up as to whether he thought that the theory of evolution by natural selection ruled out belief in god. In his book, he is clear about what his personal beliefs are.

But the split is not, as popularly supposed, between religious believers and secularists. It is between transcendentalists, those who think that moral guidelines exist outside the human mind, and empiricists, who think them contrivances of the mind. (p. 238)

I am an empiricist, On religion I lean towards deism but consider its proof largely a problem in astrophysics. The existence of a cosmological God who created the universe (as envisaged by deism) is possible, and may eventually be settled, perhaps by forms of material evidence not yet imagined. Or the matter may be forever beyond human reach. In contrast, and of far greater importance to humanity, the existence of a biological God, one who directs organic evolution and intervenes in human affairs (as envisaged by theism) is increasingly contravened by biology and the brain sciences.

The same evidence, I believe, favors a purely material origin of ethics, and it meets the criterion of consilience: Causal explanations of brain activity and evolution, while imperfect, already cover the most facts known about moral behavior with the greatest accuracy and the smallest number of free-standing assumptions. (p. 240)

It is pretty clear that he is a materialist and does not believe in god as popularly conceived. But in his public responses to the question of god’s existence, I was surprised that he seemed to duck the question altogether. He avoided giving a direct answer, saying that he was not interested in making pronouncements on this issue because his primary concern is saving the planet and its biodiversity from extinction, and in order to do that he needed allies from the religious communities since they are so large in number.

So Wilson was taking a tactical position, similar to what I described earlier amongst those people who downplay the anti-god implications of science in general and evolution in particular because they seek to form alliances with religious people in their attempts to create support for science and the theory of evolution. Such people, even though they themselves do not believe in god, perpetuate for political purposes the fiction that science and belief in a (non-deist) god are compatible. Other scientists also refrain from pointing out the incompatibility of science with religion out a misplaced sense that the religious sensibilities of people have a special status that we should respect by refraining from pointing out its lack of any empirical content.

But even allowing for that, is Wilson pursuing a good strategy? I think not because I do not think religious people are likely to be consistent and reliable allies on the issue of saving the planet.

The reason is that if you believe in any god other than a deistic one, one cannot help but have a fatalistic attitude towards big questions like the future of the planet. While more sophisticated religious people might believe that god does not micromanage each person’s life, all believers in god believe that there is some grand cosmic plan. That is usually why they believe in god after all. How can such a plan not include the fate of the Earth?

I suspect that all religious people must have some sense that the future of the Earth must be part of god’s plan, that whether the environment is eventually destroyed by humans or saved is determined by god. This attitude removes any sense of real urgency to personally take steps to deal with this issue.

On the other hand, people who do not believe in god know that only our own policies and actions can make the difference between a premature destruction of the ecosystem and long-term survival. There is no deus ex machina to rescue us.

So if we wish to really get action to save the planet, beliefs in the existence of god will, in the long run, be a hindrance and so Wilson might be better off joining other materialists is seeking to convince believers that god is dead.

POST SCRIPT: Life is a job

Father Guido Sarducci reveals the secret of the meaning of life and what happens to you after death.


  1. Josh Friedman says

    Putting classical deists aside, and discussing those who believe in “some grand cosmic plan”, do you really think that the vast majority of those people believe that plan to be geocentric?

    As someone who does not believe in any plan, I really can’t say what those people think, but the selfish view does seem the easiest to accept. It’s more difficult to accept that you are a meaningless cog in some machine designed for a greater purpose.

  2. says


    I am not sure about geocentric but definitely anthropocentric. The special status of human beings is endemic to Christianity (at least) and so the thought that the environment that we depend upon will be allowed by god to be destroyed might seem unthinkable to such religious people.

  3. Jared says


    Not all religious people are so one sided that they let religion guide all of their behavior (even if they might claim that it does). You will find a lot of religious people who feel strongly about environmental preservation. However, I do agree that it is not worthwhile to go out of your way to construct environmentalism arguments to be palatable to the religious. In fact, I believe that one of the environment’s worst enemies is religion.

    My personal experience is that of those who believe in a “Divine Plan”, a significant majority believe that God would not LET anything bad happen to the earth. Those who believe that there is a God looking out for us and actually intervening but also recognize that we are capable of making life on this planet very hard/impossible (through resource depletion, ecological destruction, global warming, etc.) exist, but they appear to be rather uncommon.

    I went to high school in a very religious area, and even though at the time I was still struggling with religious questions myself (I wasn’t yet an atheist), I was flabbergasted by the sort of things others would say. The one that stuck with me the longest was this:

    “Well, I really don’t think we should worry about any of that environmental stuff because I don’t think God would let anything bad happen to the earth without providing a solution”

    When I pressed the guy further, he admitted that he believed that God probably was waiting for all of the earth’s resources to be depleted before he started the ol’ Second Coming. I couldn’t get him to go further, but it was implied that ruining the earth was a GOOD thing.

    So the problem was not that he wasn’t thoughtful enough--clearly he had given this a lot of though--the problem was that he chose to cede all responsibility to some higher purpose. This is really the most dangerous facet of religion. Is not the belief in a “higher plan” seen by many as one of the more favorable aspects of religion?


  4. says

    Josh: Religions seems to me like it would be fairly geocentric out of necessity, like any human endeavor. Take Scientology and Mormonism, which seem to respectively include ideas about evil aliens at the galactic core and Jesus living with his brother Satan on other planets. How often do they carry on about communication with extraterrestrial bodies? Most of their worries (publicly at least) seem to be Earth-based.

  5. says

    Religion and the environment are two separate entities. Everyone has their own view on the environment and that view may or may not be formed based on religion. Either way, Mano and the other people posting comments have valid and constructive points.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *