Is religion opposed to science? This topic crops up constantly in our our world —with the underlying presumption that religion is “faith based,” and therefore worlds apart from science, which is “reason based.” But is this true? The global climate change debate provides a perfect example of how science really works, because the argument, itself, has been so well documented —and because it doesn’t really involve “first principles,” like the belief in evolution.
The basic story line goes something like this: Man modifies his environment in three ways. First, he generates heat directly, by burning things. Second, he cuts down huge tracts of forest land that would soak up Carbon Dioxide, replacing them with “urban heat islands.” Third, he burns fossil fuels, which feed rich amounts of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere. The result of these three things is that man is causing the global temperature to rise. This, in turn, causes massive changes in weather patterns, crops to fail, and changes in the sea level by melting huge areas of ice.
The question at hand is whether or not any of this is true. If you’re going to make massive changes in the way the world is run, you should at least make certain the facts on which you’re basing your policy are true.
But if we look at the way the answer to this very basic question has been pursued, we can easily see that it’s not anything like a scientific process. Instead of hard experiments, we have computer models. No-one is quite certain if the inputs for the computer models are really correct, nor that these computer models actually have the right inputs. No one is quite certain that the models themselves are correct.
As for “hard evidence,” there is none. Global temperatures seem to rise and fall pretty much without regard to how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere. And there’s no solid explanation of why this should be.
What happens when someone comes up with an alternate theory?
Scientists have been speculating on the relationship among cosmic rays, solar activity and clouds since at least the 1970s. But the notion didn’t get a workout until 1995, when Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark came across a 1991 paper by Eigil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen, who had charted a close relationship between solar variations and changes in the earth’s surface temperature since 1860.
“I had this idea that the real link could be between cloud cover and cosmic rays, and I wanted to try to figure out if it was a good idea or a bad idea,” Mr. Svensmark told me from Copenhagen, where he leads sun-climate research at the Danish National Space Institute.
He wasn’t the first scientist to have the idea, but he was the first to try to demonstrate it. He got in touch with Mr. Friis-Christensen, and they used satellite data to show a close correlation among solar activity, cloud cover and cosmic-ray levels since 1979.
They announced their findings, and the possible climatic implications, at a 1996 space conference in Birmingham, England. Then, as Mr. Svensmark recalls, “everything went completely crazy. . . . It turned out it was very, very sensitive to say these things already at that time.” He returned to Copenhagen to find his local daily leading with a quote from the then-chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): “I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naïve and irresponsible.”
…
“I remember another researcher saying to me years ago that the only thing he could say about cosmic rays and climate was it that it was a really bad career move.”
-WSJ
In other words, if you don’t agree with the “consensus,” your evidence will be shut out of the conversation whenever possible. Your career will be shunted aside.
If this is the way science is conducted, then it’s not science at all. Instead, it’s a religion, and religion of the worst kind —a religion based on personal reputation and political power, rather than seeking for the truth.
In this fight, then, science is not on one side, and religion on the other. Instead, it’s one religion on the one side, and another on the other. Until we get that picture straight in our heads, it’s going to be impossible for us to make sense of the modern world.
Your statements about science process, including scientific criticism, are broad and misleading. An example of a scientific disagreement from 1996 is grossly insufficient to discount the totality of climate change science and the hundreds of sincere researchers in the field. It is even more appalling to extend that criticism to all studies in science, as your statements at the beginning and end of the post insinuate. If someone wrote 700 words questioning the worth and definition of religion using a single, unfortunate example as their basis you would be rightfully horrified. It is disappointing that you would write such a poorly thought-out opinion and even more disgusting that you would publish such vain rhetoric under the topic of “science opposed to religion”. Shame on you.
Wow! A single example that illustrates the problem is more than enough to show that people are treating science as religion –especially as the “global climate change science” issue has less underlying evidence, and is yet being treated more as a faith based belief than every before. Shame on you for writing a comment that essentially refutes nothing said in the original article –other than arguing that “old news is no news.”
Galileo had the same problem when he tried to show the earth revolved around the sun. The religious zealots, otherwise known as scientists, didn’t want to listen to his evidence.
“If someone wrote 700 words questioning the worth and definition of religion using a single,unfortunate example as their basis you would be rightfully horrified.”
Horrified? Not necessarily. The Christian faith sits on one fact, the resurrection. As Paul put it in 1 Corinthians: 15:12 Now if Christ is being preached as raised from the dead,9 how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? 15:13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 15:14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is futile and your faith is empty. 15:15 Also, we are found to be false witnesses about God, because we have testified against God that he raised Christ from the dead, when in reality he did not raise him, if indeed the dead are not raised. 15:16 For if the dead are not raised, then not even Christ has been raised. 15:17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is useless; you are still in your sins. 15:18 Furthermore, those who have fallen asleep10 in Christ have also perished. 15:19 For if only in this life we have hope in Christ, we should be pitied more than anyone.
But, of course, Christ is risen, and because that one fact is true, the faith stands. And if the popular causes of global warming were disproved, by the same token, what’s left?
The entire Galileo incident has been overblown. From Wikipedia:
“Galileo’s championing of heliocentrism was controversial within his lifetime, when most subscribed to either geocentrism or the Tychonic system.[10] He met with opposition from astronomers, who doubted heliocentrism due to the absence of an observed stellar parallax.[10] The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, and they concluded that it could only be supported as a possibility, not as an established fact.[10][11] Galileo later defended his views in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which appeared to attack pope Urban VIII and thus alienated him and the Jesuits who had both supported Galileo up until this point.”
His attack on the Pope is what made the Roman Church mad, not his science –in fact, his scientific work was supported by the Pope until the Pope, himself, was attacked. Once that happened, as with all of these sorts of situations, his theory was declared “heresy” based not on the science, but his personal attack. The lesson for science here is not to try and advance knowledge through personal attacks on those who are paying your bills, but rather to stick to the method and discovery. In other words, don’t use science to try and make religious statements.
Where have I heard that before?
Not true. The scientific community, including the field of climate change, has very plain expectations about interpreting results and making conclusions including access to supporting data, experimental replication, funding disclosures, etc. There is nothing faith-based or religious about the scientific process – not just in definition, but also in practice. Personality conflicts aside, defending your work in the face of rigorous scrutiny and criticism is a part of the process. The examples (from all fields of science) supporting the scientific process are staggering – citing one ambiguous example where the process may have moved too slow, succumbed to personal or political influence, or failed completely is not a credible or honest assessment of climate change science or any scientific discipline. It is shameful and obvious to suggest otherwise, as the author does. I’m not arguing that old news is not news. I’m suggesting that the author sets up the article as a discussion of “science versus religion”, which could be a valid philosophical discussion about what is more beneficial to mankind, but then makes a twisted case using unscientific conclusions that climate change is based on poor quality research (eg a consensus based on “no hard evidence”) and/or a mean-spirited reception of new research in 1996 to somehow invalidate all science with a special emphasis on climate change. I get it. The author wants to create doubt in science as a rigorous and trustworthy source of valuable information. Moreover, the author implies that the less you trust science the more you will trust god and vice versa… and the author clearly has an issue understanding the science that supports/refutes man’s role in climate change (the extent of which is not completely known). I am unaware of a religious reason for discounting climate change science – there’s plenty of scripture regarding man’s responsibilities. Is it the idea (as the author and Russ seem to put forth) that science should not promote or dictate changes in human behavior? Are you suggesting that only religion (and let’s be specific and endorse my fundamental christian background) can offer solutions to large (global) problems, or potential future problems, or man-made problems????
If you ignore the climate change points made in the article, which are easily picked apart as minutia if you look into the field but this is really beside the point, the reader is left with 700 vain words pushing a hurtful agenda under the banner of “Christ”. The author reinforces the notion that science and religion are mutually exclusive sources for beneficial information and insight. The author suggests and demonstrates that attacking science (and people do this to religion all the time) using incomplete, misleading, and unsupported statements is a valid way to discuss the role of science and religion in our lives. This promotes ignorance, incite needless anger and does nothing to enlighten or deepen our understanding of either topic (science or religion). It certainly doesn’t bring people to Christ. And for that, shame on you.
“There is nothing faith-based or religious about the scientific process – not just in definition, but also in practice.”
You are wrong –science is based on faith –faith that the world generally runs by “laws” (which really aren’t laws), and therefore some specific sorts of truths will yield to observation.
But beyond this, you’re missing the point –the “science” in question goes even farther, for the observations in question don’t support the predictions being put forward. When science runs beyond the available observations, it has moved into the religious realm, pure and simple. In the case of climate change, let’s look at the facts. Man does change the climate –but so does every living thing. I suppose the only way to have a “stable” environment, in the mind of an environmentalist, is to simply kill all living creatures off the face of the Earth. But is this a reasonable solution?
Now you’ll argue that it’s man, specifically, that’s a problem, because man has not “taken care of the environment.” Without generalizing from the specific and local to the global (in other words, you can’t use any specific, local examples of a dirty river, or an oil spill, or anything like that –you must only rely on global and verifiable examples), where is your proof for the assertion that man has made the Earth warmer, or colder, or… To prove this, you must prove that every other variable is of no account, and you must have completely accurate and reliable temperature measurements from the last 200 to 300 years, and you must show a correlation between temperature and man’s activity after all other factors have been taken out.
Since you can’t know every other factor, the impact of every other factor, there is no accurate temperature record for the last 200 to 300 years, and there is no observable correlation between human activity and global temperature, your case fails on all counts.
This promotes ignorance, incite needless anger and does nothing to enlighten or deepen our understanding of either topic (science or religion). It certainly doesn’t bring people to Christ. And for that, shame on you.
Your own reply proves my point fully. Your attacks are all personal and invective, rather than fact based. Your essential argument is: “By disagreeing with what the world perceives as settled science, you’re showing how ignorant you are, and that damages our ability to witness.” The world, at large, knows –for certain– that dead men can’t come back to life. This is settled science –much more settled than any sort of “global climate change.” So if science is all so perfect, then why should I believe in Christ in the first place?
So what you are saying is that we should bow to science when it’s politically expedient in order to witness more effectively, and change our minds when the science changes. Sorry, I won’t do that. That doesn’t honor Christ.
Science is not based on faith. It’s based on observations, which you aptly point out in your next paragraph. You can’t redefine science out of convenience. You can claim that some science is not good (not enough data, interpreted incorrectly, etc.) or perhaps not even science at all (such as astrology). In regards to climate change, debating the merits and/or limitation of specific conclusions would be an entirely appropriate discussion if you honestly and carefully considered the subject, some of which is not settled at all… but you don’t and the author didn’t either. You don’t even appear to try to understand the topic beyond knocking down “facts” in order to promote the idea that all climate change science is bogus (based on faith, not observations). Your arguments fall painfully short of the truth, which I find very distasteful and decidedly anti-christian.
This is my point – the article (which is basically an edited version of Anne Jolis’s piece in the Wall Street Journal titled The Other Climate Theory) appears to be written as an attack on science in the name of Christ. This is shameful and offensive. You could write a similar article titled “professional sports verses religion” and cite the sinful exploits of numerous pro basketball players as evidence to make the case that professional sports are opposed to the spirit of Christ and contain nothing worthwhile or truthful. We can spend hours typing responses about how christians shouldn’t “bow to sports” and debating the merits of church-sponsored leagues, etc. BUT, the truth is that the conflict between these two subjects is generated under false pretenses, apparently with the specific goal of inciting anger, sowing doubt, and promoting ignorance. This is shameful, immature behavior.
It’s not a personal attack to call out dishonesty, even within your own community. It’s shameful to defend a false agenda simply because the author is christian or published it under the name of Christ. I believe we will all be held accountable, we should act accordingly.
“Science is not based on faith. It’s based on observations, which you aptly point out in your next paragraph.”
The observations can only be considered true within a specific framework, and that framework is based on faith.
This is my point – the article (which is basically an edited version of Anne Jolis’s piece in the Wall Street Journal titled The Other Climate Theory) appears to be written as an attack on science in the name of Christ.
You making a bunch of assumptions here –what you think the original article “appears to say,” first, and second that I’m agreeing completely with everything the article says, rather than using the article as a springboard for another point. Your “sports verses Christianity,” comments also shows me that you’ve entirely missed the point. The point I’m making is when science runs beyond it’s observations and foundational worldview it becomes a religion. Obviously you don’t see that connection –but that you don’t see it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Christianity is not against science within the framework of a Christian worldview. When science steps outside that worldview, then science becomes a religion. Science, without a solid foundation in the reality of Christianity, is an idol, pure and simple. That the “scientific community” refuses to listen to contrary points of view simply shows it has moved past the idea of observing what is real, and making faith based statements that cannot be proven through observation.
It’s not a personal attack to call out dishonesty, even within your own community. It’s shameful to defend a false agenda simply because the author is christian or published it under the name of Christ. I believe we will all be held accountable, we should act accordingly.
Two points. First, several people have told me that your comments are mean spirited and generally “ugly,” in their tone. You are obviously emotionally attached to the theory of manmade climate change, based on what you’ve said and how you’ve said it. Even in this comment, you can’t hold back from calling me names. For instance, you impugn my motives with lines like this:
…the truth is that the conflict between these two subjects is generated under false pretenses, apparently with the specific goal of inciting anger, sowing doubt, and promoting ignorance. This is shameful, immature behavior.
Really? You really think my motives are to incite anger, sow doubt, and promote ignorance? Do you actually think about what you’re writing before you write it? I’m so glad you know the “truth” of what I’m thinking –is this a prophetic power of some kind?
Second, pursuing truth is honoring Christ –and to pursue truth, you must at least listen to all opinions. That the scientific community is unwilling to listen to contrary evidence is a fact based on many instances, and words many of the top scientist have spoken themselves. Manmade global climate change is not “settled science;” shutting down the viewpoints of those who disagree is not a valid path forward in the scientific community (although you apparently think it is).
For example, my wife just pointed this article out to me:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/14/nobel-prize-winning-physicist-resigns-from-top-physics-group-over-global/?cmpid=cmty_email_Gigya_Nobel_Prize-Winning_Physicist_Resigns_Over_Global_Warming
This line might catch your eye:
“The claim … is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period,” his email message said.
Just this single fact entirely disproves the idea of catastrophic global climate change caused by human activity.
It serves no-one, not even Christ, to join in with those who refuse to listen to contrary evidence in the name of “evangelism.”
Wow. There’s definitely a philosophical discussion in here about what is a “foundational worldview” and a “christian worldview” and “within a specific framework”, etc. I’m not trying to be mean but the article (and the responses if Russ wants to take this personally) are examples of a poor writing, misleading statements, and sweeping generalizations about the scientific community that are mean-spirited and false. And yes, I question the motivation of the author because it does seem pretty obvious from the title and content that the article is intended to incite conflict and promote ignorance. It seems to have succeeded and I guess that makes me and Russ suckers for playing along.
Success, in that respect, does not make it right… Nor does it make it righteous in the eyes of the Lord.
So I must assume from this comment that you mean my responses are “examples of poor writing, misleading statements, and sweeping generalizations about the scientific community that are mean-spirited and false.” I certainly hope you can back your assertions up before the bar of God –because simply reasserting the same things over and over here haven’t proven them. I would argue that when you start from the point of view that science is somehow separate from a religious foundation and an underpinning worldview, you are actually “promoting ignorance.” And when you jump onto a blog and start calling people names, you’re “inciting conflict.”
Discussing how science works, and the underpinnings of science, and where Christians should accept science or not are not “promoting ignorance,” nor “inciting conflict” –unless you think deviating from the “settled science” is “inciting conflict.” But then if you think that, then we still have this little problem about the “settled science” in relation to the Resurrection, for instance.
At any rate, I’m going to close comments on this post, because they don’t seem to be leading anyplace productive.
[...] [...]