Science as a religion: how science harms the effort to save the planet

I used to think science was different than religion...maybe they are more the same than I thought

I used to think science was quite different from religion. No doubt it is in the domain of knowledge acquisition itself: while religion typically institutes a set of beliefs that require faith, the scientific method approximates knowledge through a series of falsifiable experiments. In science, as knowledge accumulates, this approximation approaches the truth.

Science is a great way to understand the world mathematically and logically, but it cannot provide all the solutions through consumerism and capitalism. Nor can it constitute a complete understanding of the world on an emotional level. Photo © Jason Polak

Yet in modern society, science has taken on aspects of a religion in a different way: although the process of science itself does not require faith, science as a whole has become something to blindly believe in when it comes to solving the greatest problem of our world: biospheric degradation through climate change and the destruction of natural habitats. Just take a look at some of these recent quotations:

"Fusion seems like one of the possible solutions to get ourselves out of our impending climate disaster." -Martin Greenwald

"Even in the most optimistic scenarios, such clean-energy deployments are unlikely to be enough to enable countries to keep their climate commitments. More innovation will also be needed — for example, in the form of technologies that can pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere." Nature editorial

"China creates vast research infrastructure to support ambitious climate goals." Title of news article on Nature.

At the same time, science is not a religion to be believed in by all. There are in fact a large group of people who don't believe in climate change at all: this is notable amongst populists who don't have much faith in traditional institutions or science, which in turn leads them to climate skepticism.

Of course, it is absolutely asinine to deny climate change: if one has any knowledge of science at all, what we have done to the planet is blindingly obvious. We've got the highest level of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 800,000 years and the background extinction rate of animals has gone way up, and of course there are many examples of direct persecution of species. I even tire of repeating this, but I do anyway because there are a whole lot of people out there who will still deny this.

Yet, I wonder if the near-religious belief in science is part of the problem that in turn fuels so much of the skepticism? When you read endless diatribes about needing new technology to solve the climate crisis, I can't totally blame skeptics and populists for their doubt: traditional institutions, many scientists, and governments are basically all on the bandwagon of trying to keep consumerism and capitalism going, while trying to convince us that they are trying to do something good for our biosphere.

Just read this quotation from an article on the environmental impacts on mining:

As today, any future society will have similar or even bigger needs for water, food, and energy, and hence, the availability of these resources has to be ensured to future generations.

Or perhaps this quotation from 350.org:

We believe in a safe climate and a better future — a prosperous and equitable world built with the power of ordinary people, driven by renewable energy and rooted in justice.

In other words, most traditional institutions say they are doing something about climate change, but in reality they're keeping hidden the fact that they don't want to give up any of their power or luxuries from the activity that is the most fundamental fact which causes climate change in the first place: unsustainable technology and energy usage which, even if we use 100% so-called "clean" energy grids, will always need unsustainable mining and habitat destruction.

This fundamental contradiction is precisely why science has become a bit of a religion in the sense that people have started to believe in it to solve our problems. If we treated it purely rationally, we would understand that science cannot solve our climate problems alone, especially when science operates within the traditional capitalistic realm. We can only expect it to work within consumerism: in other words, science and the actions taken in response to scientific knowledge will always remain in the domain of consumerism and capitalism, which can in turn never truly reverse the climate crisis without more drastic actions such as the dismantling of consumerism and global culture itself.

Thus, it is no wonder that populists and climate skeptics are indeed skeptical: just as an animal can sense fear and attack, so can skeptical individuals sense when science and governments are not operating on good faith. Yes, the science is correct, but the actions taken after the science is done are certainly not. Scientists have discovered crucial information, but our governments, news agencies, and even some scientists then take that information and act weakly and on the fence, making sure to never threaten the global economy. Trying to keep the global economy alive through your actions to save the climate is not good faith.

It's all the more convincing because there has been many attacks launched at big oil: of course, I agree that big oil should be taken down, and it should be done swiftly with force, but the economy itself still survives. Just look at the S&P 500. Do you see it going down? Or what about this global GDP per capita chart?

Data source: https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/

If we really want to unite in the fight against climate change, we need to stop treating science as a religion that will save us and the economy. We have to stop trying to fool people that we can actually save the economy at all through scientific innovation or otherwise. We have to just admit it: we already know what to do, which is take down consumerism and advanced technology itself. Cheap overseas clothing has got to stop. Plastic production has got to stop. New iPhones, cars models, computers, particle accelerators, trips to the moon. It must stop. And if the governments don’t stop it, we should stop it ourselves.

This doesn’t actually mean a worse life for us: it actually means less pollution, more nature around us, greater self-sufficiency for us in terms of being able to use our land to feed us, and no more being locked in as wage slaves, working meaningless jobs for faceless corporations so we can enrich the lives of those who have stolen the most property (a.k.a. large property “owners”). We only think this life is better due to the immense amount of propaganda created by the corporations and the rich.

We need to use much less energy and reduce the global supply chain from a river to a trickle. We need to take down large corporations and the institutions that support them. Yes, we might need some technology like some green energy to do so, but if we continue as we have been doing, then we are promising to wreck the climate. Civilization will collapse regardless, but if we unite and stop the truly damaging human activities that cause climate change, we can make that collapse gentle and without much suffering. On the other hand, if we continue to treat the world economy as sacred as the propaganda of the rich tells us to, then the collapse will be harsh and disastrous. You choose.

As for scientists, the solution is simple: stop playing along and acquiescing to the desires of big business and the government. It is only by telling not just the truth (the results of scientific experiments) but the whole truth (their implications as well in all gory details, even if those implications go against consumerism) that we can stop bickering over who’s right, and start actually doing something.