How does one prove something that is not tangible? Arguments of global warming continue to evolve into heated debates on whether it truly exists or not. Pictures of melting ice caps and polar bears sitting on, what appears to be, a melting island of ice, proves the point of an environmentalist, right? The more thought put into proving the global warming argument, the more the debate becomes an unwelcome messiah – a science based on faith.
As debaters on one side require more proof, debaters on the other side of the debate continue to try to convert nonbelievers into seeing the light.
While researchers look for evidence of climate change, leaders of organized religion engage in the running debate by offering their own findings and endorsement on the issue. The Dalai Lama reiterates the global climate issue by endorsing developments to reduce carbon gas emissions and to remove massive quantities of fossil carbon from the atmosphere.
The Vatican sent a letter from the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that offered a detailed report on their scientific data that described consequences directly caused by global warming. Such a cause would make sense coming from a creation, faith-based system, which, in this case, would behoove the Church to continue endorsing science in what cannot be seen – global warming.
Daoists have a belief system that falls right into place regarding global warming. Much of their belief system adheres to four principles that are deeply connected to Earth’s environment. The Daoists have a belief that is more akin to the biocentric view – a view that sees inherent value in all living things.
The researched information and opinions that religious leaders bring to the heated table is just as ample as nonreligious environmentalists, yet the element of evolution is ignored by both sides. Why?
Evolution would mean that humans, as anthropocentrics with the kill-or-be-killed mentality, have the right to take from the Earth, which exists for humans to rule. Unless there are some changes to the Darwinian theoretical perspective, there is no room for an environmentalist’s cause. The same goes for creationism as much as a belief in Darwin’s theory of Origin of Species conflicts with the Church’s spiritual theory.
The proposed evidence of global warming is to nonbelievers as the Bible is to evolutionists. If there is no solid evidence, then why should one believe it? The theories of global warming do make sense only until the opposite side requires more proof. Such a debate does contain a religious fervor, bringing the notion that, just because the impact is not yet felt, it doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.
The impending doom in which one is to believe is a theory that is certainly intertwined with most religious perspectives. As religions such as Christianity and Judaism have an anthropocentric view, it is probably safe to say that the individuals who seek a science-based perspective where global warming is concerned should probably seek it without the knee-jerk reaction to convert the few who have yet to opine on the subject. Quite simple – try not to shove the global warming belief or nonbelief down our throats as the faith-based perspective of global warming is still a scientific hunch.
Written by: Dianna Coudriet