Hi all, I’m not an expert of climate changes and climate sciences, but for obvious reasons, and being a scientist myself, I am interested in the issue. Here the discussion is quite important and really difficult to approach.

Climate changes represent a serious and real tangible issue to natural world and human society, at all levels and sectors. Natural fluctuations have always occurred cyclically and will always occur (even though abrupt changes may occur, as they already did in the past), but it is evident that their frequency, intensity and effects have dramatically changed over the last century, and not for natural causes. The rapid warming (on a geological scale rather than on a year to year scale) that is happening at present is a fact, with undisputable evidence retrieved from ice cores. A range of climate models, by the IPCC, predict a global averaged temperature increase of 2-6 degrees by 2100. Even the abrupt PETM warming event did not happen on a timescale as fast.

There is no doubt that human civilization has had a negative impact on natural environments, particularly since the industrial revolution. For sure, at this point, it is clear that we cannot go back in time and undo what we already did as it is as well evident that we cannot stop the chain reaction that we have started. But for sure we can try to slow it down by reducing our impact and contribution to the force driving the sudden (on a geological time scale) changes. How to achieve this is still a gigantic question mark.

What religion has to deal with all this big mess is another good question, but here the answer seems to be more delineated. But before further commenting on this I would like to make a brief but essential preliminary remark, that is, I’m not religious nor believer in the common meaning and acceptation of the two words. If I should place myself somewhere in the vast tangled up chessboard of the so many different and diverse religions, philosophies, currents of thought and magical visions of existence bordering on foolishness, I certainly see myself closer to Buddhism than to anything else.

Going to the point now, it is an historical matter of facts that religion, all of them, has always been the driving force of all human activities, choices and behavior. Religion has an impact on politics, economics, social ethics and moral, and environment as well. I think that talking specifically about the relation between different faiths and climate change is a little bit too hard, but it is certainly possible to talk about the relationship about religion and nature/environment.

As an example, most of eastern philosophies, Buddhist tradition in primis, have always attributed a great importance to the deep understanding of the interdependence of humans with nature. If we understand the connection between the two, we will be more conscious of ourselves, of our actions and their consequences towards ourselves, the others and the environment. The Dalai Lama has described an “new” ethics built on compassion, restraint, and acceptance of universal responsibility for the well-being of the earth, called “ethics for the new millennium”. Respecting the environment has to be an expression of our deepest moral values. Respecting the environment and nature becomes less a choice and more a locus of ethical development.

On the other hand there are western religions. In 1967 UCLA History Professor Lynn White, Jr., wrote an article entitled "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis" (Science 155(3767):1203-1207, 1967). In his article, he said that the Western world's attitudes towards nature were shaped by the Judeo-Christian tradition (he also included Islam and Marxism within this overall tradition). This tradition involved the concept of a world created solely for the benefit of man: "God planned all explicitly for man's benefit and rule: no item in the physical creation had any purpose save to serve man's purposes." Along with this, Western Christianity separated humans from nature. In older religious traditions, humans were seen as part of nature, rather than the ruler of nature. And in animistic religions, there was believed to be a spirit in every tree, mountain or spring, and all had to be respected. In contrast with paganism and Eastern religions, Christianity "not only established a dualism of man and nature but also insisted that it is God's will that man exploit nature for his proper ends." Christianity, and Western civilization as a whole, held a view of nature that separated humans from the rest of the natural world, and encouraged exploitation of it for our own ends.

Despite the importance that religion can have in shaping human mind, and despite the critics that environmental activists address to religion (i.e. religion is the main responsible for human attitudes towards the environment), it has to be underlined that it has had a role far less crucial in defining our approach and choices. In fact, most of the environmentally negative ideas of western religions derive from western philosophy, and specifically from classic Greek philosophy and European post-modern philosophy.

First off I do not think climate change is something to be "solved". Any look at marine isotope data will show that. The Earth's climate inherently fluctuates whether or not we like it. That said the rate at which climate is changing today is unprecedented for at least the past two millennia (see Kemp et al 2011, and Mann et al. 2009 in the PNAS).

Presumably a change in climate will affect all of the biosphere and hydrosphere. Agriculture, infrastructure, and political boundaries are all dependent upon our current climate (Cultural Geography 101).

Therefore addressing the consequences of a rapidly changing climate is the concern of all responsibly minded people, religious or not. Attitudes at the public level, secular and religious, must be changed so that governments will be pressured to act.

Thank you for the response. I agree with all that you have said except the words "solved" and "problem". As a research student, though not an expert in the field of environmental science, I did chose "Climate Change" as the main issue for my M.Phil. dissertation. In any research, it is mandatory to pick up an issue or a problem for doing research. In that sense, I consider "Climate change' as one big problem humankind are facing in the 21st century for which we all need to do something about it as you have mentioned it and I've argued and presented "Climate change" as a problem in my last dissertation which need to be solved. But now you pointed out that it is not to be solved but it need to be addressed and pressurize the governments to act. My question is, if this is not a problem to be solved, what is the need for people to address the issue and why should we pressurize the governments to act on it?

I don't mean to be controversial in the least. I just think the climate issue needs to be reframed. I do agree climate change is a "problem" in that it will likely adversely affect society. Changing climate is not a "solvable problem" in that climate change is inherent to Earth's system. It seems like semantics but I think if people understand that a changing climate is inherent to the Earth system perhaps we can move past arguing whether or not climate is changing and move to the more important discussion of how can we best cope with a changing climate.

The frustrating thing to me is that the question of climate change is debatable issue of belief. For example it is common for someone to ask, "do you believe in global warming ?". For me the question of climate change is not one of belief rather one of measurement. The question should not be whether or not someone believes in global warming rather what do the data support? That said, I don't want to be caught up in semantics. I just wanted to convey that society will inevitably face a changing climate.

To answer you question more directly I think society can move in greatly positive ways to addressing climate related issues. Perhaps if society as a whole realized that we live upon a finite and dynamic planet perhaps our policy makers would be more apt to sincerely act. Perhaps policy makers would realize climate is changing whether we like it or not. and that the decisions we have made in the past and are making today are exacerbating the issue. I think the discussion needs to move past just narrowly focusing upon a certain issue (e.g. greenhouse gas emissions, although that is a major part of recent climate change) to a broader perspective.

The extraordinary enhanced rate of climate change, poor water quality, rapid deforestation, poverty, et cetera are all symptoms of (or a reflection of) how society perceives the Earth and each other. For me the best thing that could happen is for people (including myself) to realize the real problem facing society today is not just changing climate rather it is how we view the environment and each other as a whole. I think religion could be a great avenue where people begin to see that the quality of human life and humanities further existence as a species is directly tied to the health of the environment.

Thank you for posing the question and disagreeing, honest discussion is always welcome.

I always have room for correction and criticism. I know that climate change is a complex issue and it is debatable too, as you have said. But as I understand, climate change is real. For instance, the village where I was born was bestowed with all sorts of good natural resources - growing big trees, plenty of waters and crops and so on. It is in Hongmahn, Senapati district, Manipur, India. Now rivers are dried up and people are facing the problem of water scarcity, to give but just one glaring example, which I think is the consequence of climate change. I'm still learning and . this learning will continue. Your statement, "Changing climate is not a 'solvable problem' in that climate change is inherent to Earth's system," really help me to enhance my knowledge on this subject, for which I'm thankful to you.

One of the reasons why I pose the question is that there are sections of people who think that religions have no role to play in the context of climate change and you have rightly pointed out that religion could be a great avenue to do something for keeping the environment healthy. I will appreciate if you would kindly throw some light on how and why religion could be a great avenue!

Religion can contribute in the context of climate change in the values (most) religions instill in people including: responsibility, compassion, a longer term outlook, humility, and selflessness. Some of the most astonishing things I have heard in discussions regarding the context of climate change are: (1) "why should I care if x,y, or z occurs if it is going to occur in fifty years?" (2) "I'll be dead and/or retired." (3) "Plus it actually might help me, who cares about all those people in 'x' countries". Statements like that reflect a short-sited, selfish, uncaring attitude. That said, I have heard those statements from both religious and secular people. From a religious or secular point of view I think lack of foresight and reckless selfish behavior, embodied in denial of and/or indifference to the current state of the environment, is near insanity. It seems to me that a species would want to prolong the existence of each other and their progeny.

I think the lack of political will for governments to act stems primarily from the attitudes of society. Perhaps religious communities could provide a place for open dialogue and cause society to think about how our actions are affecting others and what kind of world are we going to leave for future generations. Open dialogue where all parties are truly listening to one another requires humility and respect. Civil responsibility stems from values of compassion, responsibility, and a long-term view.

Although we might hold to different religions, religion is one thing most humans have in common. For those who say religion has nothing to contribute in the context of climate change related consequences I would say why should we ignore such a large component (religion) of peoples' lives that has such a large control on how people view themselves, others, and the environment.

In a world which is infested with hatred(ness), selfishness, irresponsible (citizens of the earth), arrogant but not humility, no love for the protection of our environment which is the common heritage of all the people, the religious values that you have mentioned in your response are very important and relevant to this contemporary world - I mean in the context of climate change.

Open dialogue is also commendable.

However, practically, how can we achieve all these - that is, for instance, where people respect each other, listening to one another and so on? How can we make our societies on earth free from selfishness, hatred, proud, etc? A society that love to protect the planet earth from doom!

I think religions have a lot of experience in talking and dealing with responsibility and ethics. Therefore religious organizations could bring a lot to the discussions on ethical problems of climate change. Our industrial societies are responsible for significant climate changes that will probably lead to very long termchanges on the planet. For example, man-made climate change could lead to the melting of the Greenland ice sheet which may not regrow for tens of thousands of years (Ridley et al, 2010, clim dyn). Should we care about being responsible for such long term changes in the Earth Climate ? Would religions have something to say about that sort of issue?

The poorest of the poor women community are more exposed to the problems of climate change and its allied atrocities. So apart from climate scientists any society whether religious or humanitarian who have some convictions towards fellow beings interefer positively in the matter. I think we should welcome it open heartedly

Thanks for the response Mr. Lauren Jenna Gregoire. Perhaps you know some of those religious organizations that are working on climate ethics. Would you let us know what are those organizations that engaged with ethical problems pertaining to climate change and also mention some of their achievements in this regard so far!

Yes, I think, we ought to take care of the long term climate change too, for future generation matters a lot, not just the present one. As mentioned above, religious values need to be instilled, if we to protect the environment. Hence, religion has role to play in the context of human-made climate change.

Many thanks to Mr. Charlotte Sajan for he brought out the issue of poor women who suffered more than any others due to climate change. It will still be nicer to know the kind of problems that poor women faced with some glaring example like - whether they are African poor women, Asian poor women or Latin American poor women or poor women in general!

The most effected area of climate change is the scarcity of pure drinking water. Those who can afford crystal clear bottled drinking water it is not a problem at all. But in most of Indian and African villages it is a daily scene women carrying their babies in a havosack walking kilometers together with a pot on their head to fetch water for household purposes.How many trips do they need to make to meet the daily needs of water for the whole family. Another set of women, due to deforestation, how long do they walk and search for firewood to cook daily food. Cooking is the full responsibility of the women alone especially among poor people.

Among poor agriculturist the ploughing of the field alone is done by the man. The rest all work are normally carried out by the women folk. So the extreme events like heavy rain. flooding or gale directly effects their efforts, crops and livelihood much more than anything. I feel these are some among the salient, down to earth problems having direct implications to human community due to climatic change. Definitely it is possible to alleviate these problems and can be settled by little human effort and magnanimity in our outlook.

The examples poor womenfolk face due to climate change that you have mentioned may not be matter of much concern in the First world. These are, indeed, problems people in the third world - not just the poor women - have to encounter in a daily basis.

It is true that without much human effort or with a little bit of human effort, we can make a difference - making the earth a better place to live. Why don't you mention some of the little things human effort can settle?

This is the right time that I should enter the exact topic of discussion. Thank you for dragging me there by the first paragraph of your question. Climate change is not a topic that should be dealt with a privileged set of society so called scientist alone sitting in front of the computers and deriving solutions. The most under privileged people who are more exposed to its consequences live around us present day itself. The wide gap between the scientist and the poor people can be met by the intervention of some religious or other society with more social commitments. Religion and different faiths have some significance in this context because it is a venue where you see more devoted set of people who are more generous and willing to extend a helping hand in such issues. Moreover religious leaders can assemble many more people into the issue and can carry out charity works also to alleviate the problems of climate change. Your usage of third world and first world, in this context really embarrasses me Mr.Pillarson.

Thanks for the prompt response. What I did was to help us participate more in the discussion on the subject (religions and cl;imate change) and learn from each other. There are many who think that it is waste of time to discuss on climate change, especially some of the religious groups, thus the question was raised. But good that many of you who participated in this discussion have said that religions have significant role to play. Such discussion must be allowed to continue. We should invite more people to share their opinions too.

The other terms or phrases that correspond to "first world" and "third world" are "the rich" Northern hemisphere and "the poor" southern hemisphere. I used those words ("first world" and "Third world")mainly from the economic point of view, though I'm not an economist. As for instance, we know that the western countries' per capita income is much higher than that of the south and south east countries like Asian countires, etc. That means many Asians and Africans, for example, are living below the poverty line. We can also use "developed world" instead of the "first world" and developing world" in place of the "third world". And the poor in these developing countries are the ones who suffer more in the context of climate change though it is the rich and developed countries whcih are mainly responsible for the emissions of greenhouse gases,and so on.

This has been a very interesting discourse and I have come to appreciate the view of climate change as an inevitable event and not as a problem to be solved. As much as that can be debatable, the changes in climate portend a clear and approaching danger if appropriate preparations are not in place. People's (individual) reaction to the 'climate change' topic can also be related to their level of environmental awareness and responsibility to it. Although, religion can be a very important vehicle, other normative influences like social norms, cultural traditions, temporal differences and experiences are vital factors that need to be considered.

If they do not bother all faith along with the followers have to perish.

Daniel Livesy. "That said the rate at which climate is changing today is unprecedented for at least the past two millennia (see Kemp et al 2011, and Mann et al. 2009 in the PNAS)."

In the last two thousand years there have been at least two cycles of temperature.

Little Ice Age ~(1550-1850 AD)

Medieval Warm Period ~(950-1250 AD)

Dark Ages Cool Period ~(700-900 AD)

Roman Warming Period ~(200 BC-600AD)

Michael Mann produced his infamous Hockey Stick Graph by filtering for it.

From time immemorable man has tried to figure out a reason or a cause behind what happens around him. Science helps a lot in knowing about the mysteries of climate change. However there is still a great deal of unexplained phenomenon which defies all known theories. For those, man has tried to turn to religion and superstitious beliefs to support their belief of the cause of climate catastrophies etc. As such I do not think religion has anything to do with climate change!

We can’t say religion has no relevance to climate change. For example within 3 months millions of pilgrims going to sabarimala, after that they are moving to other pilgrim centres too, which causes lot of environmental problem. Number of vehicles plying to different places which burns fossil fuel, water, electricity, sanitation and above all social problem results in overcrowding in public transport, artificial congregation and additional vehicle movement interfere with the regular transport etc . Deforesting area to accommodate the pilgrims, expand the temple premises, so is the case in Tirupathi, so religion do have direct and indirect relevance to climate change.

Religion has and will have a huge impact on the global climate.

Religion has been in the forefront of how man should behave , and it is this religious doctrine from all divides that have determined the way the world looks today.

Religions of all flavours have dictated the terms and conditions of how man lives on the earth , and determines what is expected of him in relationship with each other and of his environment.

Societies that have few or no centralized religious customs, show the real signs of proper stewardship of their environment , examples of the Tribes in rain forests and the Red Indians in the US , but only before the white man came and changed their ways.

Religion was hi-jacked by the need of a few to gain power for themselves and maintain control over their local societies in order to maintain their status and also to protect themselves from outside invaders.

If religion was to really promote fairness equality and freedoms, then they would also be demanding a fair share to all man of its rare supply of natural resources, whist ensuring that their use was controlled to prevent environmental damage when it is found to occur.

I suggest a dramatic mind set change in all of mans behaviour, with the eradication of all present taxes and introduction of a single natural resource tax , collected as near source as is possible and based on their environmental damage caused by there use.

The mind set and attitude of the people must be changed. Irrespective of the religion they follow certain habits must be encouraged to be adopted. Greening, reducing the waste, organic farming, avoiding any kind pollution etc would help mitigate the ill effects of climate change.

Climate change is a hard fact and we shall have to learn with it. Implications and dimension is so wide that only few scientists and researches can not address it effectively. Need less to say climate change is a remification of consumerism and over emphasising economics over ecology. Religious faiths on the other hand have always tought us to be rational and ampthetic to nature. It is therefore highly usefull to revisit those philosophies and popularise them. This will definitely stimulate people start thinking in positive way so far climate change is concerned. Jharkhand, a tribal dominated state for example has a tradition of protecting patches of forest as" Sarna Sthal", which is a religeous place in tribal faith. Local people strictly adher to protect trees of this area because they believe that soul of their departed loved one resde here. Without asking for scientific explanation of this fact, one point is more than clear that this prectice has helped protect trees of this area. Hundreds of such examples are there which further substaintiate this fact.

PK Mishra

Reply to PK Mishra

I agree with what you state about religious sites and these have protected large areas of land and forest , but also Religions have had a real detrimental role by increasing the tax burden on inderviduals with expensive tax administrative systems , and redistributed the wealth unfairly.

It was various religions that created the present tax system with church tithes and influencing the leaders of the day to raise monies for wars across the globe , which have used and released vast quantities of energy in the process.

I do not hear the same mighty voices condemning taxes and unfair distribution of wealth yet? They have been quick to take advantage of taking lands and monies in the past from the peasants in the name of the King or Queen , are they now to relinquish all rights to these?

Religions of all forms around the globe have been always linked to the power-base of the various countries and will be for the foreseeable future , and thus in this context are in a pivotal position to help move the world into a safer, sustainable and more equal society.

Every religion has faith in natural superpowers like wind, sun..!

Hi all, I’m not an expert of climate changes and climate sciences, but for obvious reasons, and being a scientist myself, I am interested in the issue. Here the discussion is quite important and really difficult to approach.

Climate changes represent a serious and real tangible issue to natural world and human society, at all levels and sectors. Natural fluctuations have always occurred cyclically and will always occur (even though abrupt changes may occur, as they already did in the past), but it is evident that their frequency, intensity and effects have dramatically changed over the last century, and not for natural causes. The rapid warming (on a geological scale rather than on a year to year scale) that is happening at present is a fact, with undisputable evidence retrieved from ice cores. A range of climate models, by the IPCC, predict a global averaged temperature increase of 2-6 degrees by 2100. Even the abrupt PETM warming event did not happen on a timescale as fast.

There is no doubt that human civilization has had a negative impact on natural environments, particularly since the industrial revolution. For sure, at this point, it is clear that we cannot go back in time and undo what we already did as it is as well evident that we cannot stop the chain reaction that we have started. But for sure we can try to slow it down by reducing our impact and contribution to the force driving the sudden (on a geological time scale) changes. How to achieve this is still a gigantic question mark.

What religion has to deal with all this big mess is another good question, but here the answer seems to be more delineated. But before further commenting on this I would like to make a brief but essential preliminary remark, that is, I’m not religious nor believer in the common meaning and acceptation of the two words. If I should place myself somewhere in the vast tangled up chessboard of the so many different and diverse religions, philosophies, currents of thought and magical visions of existence bordering on foolishness, I certainly see myself closer to Buddhism than to anything else.

Going to the point now, it is an historical matter of facts that religion, all of them, has always been the driving force of all human activities, choices and behavior. Religion has an impact on politics, economics, social ethics and moral, and environment as well. I think that talking specifically about the relation between different faiths and climate change is a little bit too hard, but it is certainly possible to talk about the relationship about religion and nature/environment.

As an example, most of eastern philosophies, Buddhist tradition in primis, have always attributed a great importance to the deep understanding of the interdependence of humans with nature. If we understand the connection between the two, we will be more conscious of ourselves, of our actions and their consequences towards ourselves, the others and the environment. The Dalai Lama has described an “new” ethics built on compassion, restraint, and acceptance of universal responsibility for the well-being of the earth, called “ethics for the new millennium”. Respecting the environment has to be an expression of our deepest moral values. Respecting the environment and nature becomes less a choice and more a locus of ethical development.

On the other hand there are western religions. In 1967 UCLA History Professor Lynn White, Jr., wrote an article entitled "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis" (Science 155(3767):1203-1207, 1967). In his article, he said that the Western world's attitudes towards nature were shaped by the Judeo-Christian tradition (he also included Islam and Marxism within this overall tradition). This tradition involved the concept of a world created solely for the benefit of man: "God planned all explicitly for man's benefit and rule: no item in the physical creation had any purpose save to serve man's purposes." Along with this, Western Christianity separated humans from nature. In older religious traditions, humans were seen as part of nature, rather than the ruler of nature. And in animistic religions, there was believed to be a spirit in every tree, mountain or spring, and all had to be respected. In contrast with paganism and Eastern religions, Christianity "not only established a dualism of man and nature but also insisted that it is God's will that man exploit nature for his proper ends." Christianity, and Western civilization as a whole, held a view of nature that separated humans from the rest of the natural world, and encouraged exploitation of it for our own ends.

Despite the importance that religion can have in shaping human mind, and despite the critics that environmental activists address to religion (i.e. religion is the main responsible for human attitudes towards the environment), it has to be underlined that it has had a role far less crucial in defining our approach and choices. In fact, most of the environmentally negative ideas of western religions derive from western philosophy, and specifically from classic Greek philosophy and European post-modern philosophy.

As the moral implications of climate change become more apparent, faith communities around the world can take action, both personal and political

Physical Facts 101: The gaseous atmosphere weighs about 10**19 pounds and - per year - we add to it about 10**11 pounds of CO2 most of which is absorbed into living plants et c. The planet is cooling. It once was a molten glob of material and over 3-4 billion years, a significant portion has solidified. Gasses have condensed to liquid to give us the vast oceans. The energies of solidification and condensation have been expunged into the galaxy. There can be no doubt the the planet is still cooling with no regard to what people do or don't do. End of Physical Facts.

@ Robert Hamilton

Professor Richard Muller, a physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, who has been an outspoken critic of the science underpinning global warming, said that there is little doubt in his mind the phenomenon of rising land temperatures is real. Over the past two years, he has chaired a group of scientists who have carried out an exhaustive analysis of more than 1.6 billion temperature recordings collected from more than 39,000 weather stations at land sites around the world.

Professor Muller and his colleagues, including 2011 physics Nobel winner, Saul Perlmutter, had suspected the previous work had been tainted by the “urban heat island effect”, where increasing urbanisation around weather stations was causing the temperature increases recorded over the past half-century. But, after a fine statistical analysis, Professor Muller said that local heat effect could not explain a global temperature increase of about 1C since 1950.

http://berkeleyearth.org/

Every religion on this planet has a notion of "The Creator", and regardless of your stance on global warming or religion, we are currently altering our planet in many negative ways. Here are some excerpts from a paper I wrote for a Spirituality and Ecology course I took while at Duke University 2 years ago:

The relationship between science and religion has always been a rocky one for

me. Although religion is one method to enact the morals behind the science, the clear

discrepancies between the two always appeared irreconcilable. Throughout the course of

this class, however, I have come to realize that religion’s ability to adjust to the needs of

the people has always been an inherent part of the system. This can be accomplished by

identifying neglected arts of their tradition, reinterpreting old beliefs, or innovating new

thoughts. Therefore, the differences that I perceived between religion and science are

inherently temporary and much progress stands to be gained from their collaboration.

...One such idea is that today’s prophets are in the form of

scientists. I obviously am a little biased on this subject, but I was always wondering why

most of the important players in religion stopped coming into existence so long ago.

Perhaps if there still are prophets today, that may lead us to a brighter future. I also like

Dewitt’s notion that science and religion offer two distinct approaches to knowledge and

that neither has a monopoly on the truth. This idea reminds me of a phrase that was

brought up in our discussion, “The larger the island of truth becomes, so too expand the

shores of uncertainty”.

...A second religious practice that I resonate with is the Hindu practice of asking the

earth for forgiveness to walk upon it each morning. Similarly in Islam, an ethical

relationship is made with the earth to receive its forgiveness. It is essential to

acknowledge the inevitability of humanity’s need to utilize our planet’s natural resources;

however, human populations may make even the most humble and respectful practices

unsustainable. The UN estimates that our population will surpass 7 billion within 2 years

and 8 billion within 16. If you find a sustainable way for 6 billion people to live on

planet earth today, your ideas would be voided just as quickly as they could be

implemented. This leads me think that if a sustainable life is possible, it will require as

much a desire to decrease our abundance as our individual impact.

...Another value that I have come to believe in is the importance of a

nondenominational doctrine as a source of morality for our planet. When so many of the

threats facing our planet’s ecology are of a global scale, this seems like a necessary

element to any realistic solution. The innate property of encompassing all frames of

religious thought indicates that they can be easily adopted by any faith. It seems like

such a beautiful, harmonious answer to our problems since it is impossible for every one

of the world’s religions to be correct, perhaps a combination of all of them contain the

answers we need. This brings me back to one of the most interesting thoughts I have

come across during this course: if biological diversity is good for the environment, maybe

conceptual and practical, cultural and religious diversity is as well.

hi everybody here

i believe that every religion on this planet has a notion of "The Creator,for example in my religion ( islam) i am Muslim . we have in our book (quran ) everything in details about this planets , climate changes , human creation and how everything is getting changed every year as miracles of quran science . if you want to know more about it , donot hesitate to take a look at this website : http://www.scienceislam.com/

Please permit to rephrase your question and add two premises. The first premise is that climate change will cause an increase in human suffering and hardship and that climate change is, at least partially, caused by human action. If you do not accept this premise then no one except climatologists should bother and there is nothing we humans can do to prevent it anyway. The second premise is that all religion is, at least partially, concerned with the problem of human suffering. If you do not accept this second premise then the obvious answer to your question is that religion should not be bothered because climate change is a subject matter outside the realm of religion. My rephrased question then is this: Is climate change (= human suffering caused by climate change) good or bad for ‘religion’? The only reason anyone or anything should be bothered about something else is if it is going to have a good or bad impact on their existence, correct? If human suffering caused by climate change is good for religion then religions should not be bothered about climate change and in fact may want to encourage it to happen faster. If human suffering caused by climate change is bad for religion then religions would want to prevent its expansion.

The answer to your question depends on whether one takes the view that human suffering (in this case caused by climate change) is good or bad for religion. Allow me to suggest an analogous question that should help clarify the issue: Is illness and injury good or bad for medicine? I think it is clear that if there were no illness or injury then there would me no, or little, need for medicine. Looked at in this way, illness and disease are good for ‘medicine’ and should be encouraged for the benefit of ‘medicine’. However, there is something about this logic that seems fallacious, perverse, and false. It is the result of thought distortion. Which goal is the correct one? The reduction of illness and injury or the promotion of medicine? Which goal is the correct one? The reduction of human suffering (in this case caused by climate change) or the promotion of religion? So while it is true that illness promotes medicine and suffering promotes religion, it would be a false conclusion to say we should have more illness and suffering so that we could have more medicine and religion. You can also see how promoters of medicine and religion might be tempted to stimulate illness and suffering since this causes a higher demand for their remedies. (By the way, this also relates to one of the main critiques of profit-driven health care: the economic incentives make the system lean towards keeping people sick—a perverse outcome.)

So you can see that there is a hazardous tendency for religion to not be bothered by, or even to encourage the acceleration of, climate change because, if anything, climate change will likely increase the amount of human suffering and therefore increase also the demand for religious consolation. I hasten to add that there are many true advocates of religion (and medicine) who fully understand this paradox and do see the true priority of good health and wellbeing even when this goes against the self-interests of the medical or theological arts. One may of course argue that a certain amount of illness and suffering is unavoidable, and I would agree. However, my premise is that climate change is at least partially preventable. In support of this contention I offer but one example: since we have stopped using leaded gasoline in our cars, the amount of lead in our air and water has fallen measurably. Our actions can clearly affect our climate/environment.

However, there is also another level of observation and conjecture. Supposing you are ill and go the doctor for many years, trying this and that remedy, this and that new treatment, and yet you still remain unwell? Wouldn’t you begin to doubt the knowledge and ability of that doctor to heal your illness? This effect may also occur with religions. After the Nazi holocaust, to give but one example, many Jews became atheists because they asked, ‘How could our God allow this to happen to us?’ There is a point at which too much suffering can open to question the value of religion. This dynamic could also come into play as a result of climate-change-induced human suffering. If one’s family members are swept away by flood waters and one’s lands are flooded beyond habitability, for example, then one might surely begin to question what is the protective value of religious practice. This has long been recognized as one of the main threats to religion: when bad things happen to good, religious people. From this point of view, both the medical and religious arts are incentivized to use their powers to give better health and wellbeing to their people. Since climate change poses the threat of causing excessive suffering to religious adherents, religions should be bothered, out of self-interest, to prevent this threat from being realized.

Religions should be bothered about climate change since 1) the true goal of religion is to palliate human suffering, and 2) there will be fewer apostates from religion if excessive suffering is avoided. We, as thoughtful citizens of the world, must be wary of the faulty reasoning that could lead to some inhuman and non-religious thoughts about climate change.'