Over the years from the 20th to the 21st century, global climate change and environmental degradation have steadily worsened due to human activities. Fracking, emissions, industry, modern agriculture, and mismanaged waste are just some of the many devastating ways the human community has contributed to Earth's environmental decline. Evidence of climate change cited by NASA includes the following: rising sea levels, rising global temperatures, warming oceans, shrinking ice sheets, decreasing Arctic sea ice, retreating glaciers, extreme weather events, ocean acidification, and decreasing snow cover (“Evidence of Climate Change”). These multitudes of scientific evidence support the phenomenon of global warming, making it an unambiguous event that has a serious impact on the health of the Earth and, consequently , on the well-being of the global human community in its survival on the planet. Earth Despite the enormous amount of evidence supporting climate change and environmental degradation, there are still populations who deny the validity of global warming based on personal or religious beliefs, whatever be the reason for disbelief on the issue of global climate and environment Change is not fundamentally a belief, but is rather a matter of scientific fact. The drastic change in the earth's environment is a borderless phenomenon and has sparked concern across the world. Unless awareness is raised and greater environmental action is taken, Earth's environmental condition will only continue to worsen. Therefore, global climate change and environmental pollution are part of a current, serious and urgent issue that requires the collective action of the international community, regardless of different religious or ethical perspectives. This is not to say that religion cannot play a role in motivating people to take environmental actions because some religious teachings certainly highlight the importance of environmental ethics. Western religions teach that human beings should reflect the same care that the Creator has for them. For example, the biblical teaching of mutual care for people, “love your neighbor as yourself,” and the idea of ​​the sacraments, or Christian expressions of divine love, can be oriented towards caring for the environment. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Although religious thoughts and beliefs can influence environmental ethics, its fundamental guidance must be scientific. In other words, although religion may postulate reasons for environmental action, science provides the most correct reasons and therefore should serve as a key motivator. Unlike religion, science provides universally undeniable evidence of the Earth's fragile reality, and this evidence should be the true impetus for morally correct action in the environmental movement, requiring the participation of the global community as a whole, regardless of moral or religious principles. individual. Therefore, the need for environmental ethics and action is due more to the fact that it is essential to human survival than to a question of choice or moral obligation driven by religious thought. One of the main opponents to the implementation of widespread and effective environmental action is the social disposition. , politics and legislation. Since religion is regarded with prejudice and controversy in the mainstream media, and therefore in society, it would not be substantial or appropriate as a main onesupporter of environmental ethics. Debate over what is right or wrong and what one religion teaches better than another would hinder proper environmental progress. A scientific writing that has caused important social changes through public awareness and, consequently, political action is the book Silent Spring, by Rachel Carson. In his book, Carson discusses the deadly effects of the pesticide DDT on the environment. She meticulously and scientifically described the process by which DDT enters the food chain and accumulates in the fatty tissues of animals, including humans, causing cancer and genetic damage. Expecting major reactions from the chemical companies producing DDT, Carson gathered a large amount of evidence to support his writings which led to a government investigation and, ultimately, the ban of DDT. One of the major legacies of Carson and Silent Spring is a new level of public awareness about environmentalism. With knowledge and this new awareness, everyone now had the potential to effect great social change. In chapter 17 of Carson's book, she states the following: “We now find ourselves where two paths diverge. But unlike the streets in Robert Frost's famous poem, they are not equally fair. The road we have been traveling for a long time is apparently easy, a smooth highway on which we proceed at great speed, but in the end disaster lies. The other fork in the road – the one less traveled – offers our last, only chance to reach a destination that ensures the preservation of the land” (Carson 114). Here Carson argues that, with the knowledge and awareness to act, society must now decide to take appropriate action. Having the right to know, the knowledge to act, and the full capacity to act are parts of a successful formula for implementing mass environmental change. By writing Silent Spring, Carson provides the central part of the formula, thus changing the course of environmental activism for the better. The current environmental situation is similar to the DDT situation in that society has all the evidence it needs to act and, in fact, has made great strides in mediating the global climate change crisis. Therefore, following Rachel Carson's model of using science to raise public awareness, modern environmental ethics does not need religious guidance since morality – right or wrong – does not depend on religion, and science can provide the part central to the formula discussed for implementing social actions. edit. This is not to say that environmental ethics cannot be influenced, at least in part, by religious teachings, as this would not interfere with large-scale environmental action. While religion should not provide the basis for environmental ethics, it certainly has its merits in doing so. it can motivate individuals to implement positive environmental change under the moral guidance of their religions. In a lecture on religious environmental ethics given by Keith Douglass Warner and David DeCosse at Santa Clara University, Warner and DeCosse discuss the environmental morality inherent in religious teachings. They argue that due to the modernization of societies, traditional religious attitudes towards nature have largely disappeared. The conference presented various writings on the issue of religious environmentalism and ultimately comes to the conclusion that environmental action is an essential part of religion. Warner and DeCosse assume that Western religious institutions have failed to delineate a “religious reason for environmental protection,” but have since posited that the ecological crisis is a moral obligation on all humans.They also claim that environmental action is a sacrament, or “expression of divine love” since the creation of the entire world has religious significance for the religious community (Warner & DeCosse). The most widely held position is that the environmental ethics part of religion is something ancient and lost, but that it needs revival to solve environmental problems in our modern world. Warner and DeCosse argue that the incorporation of environmental activism into religious teaching is a phenomenon that occurs in nearly all religions, but drawing general conclusions is difficult. This is due to the variety of religions on the planet and the fact that many environmental religious teachings and ethical practices are local in scale while climate change is a global scale issue (Warner & DeCosse). Therefore, as this conference in Santa Clara explains, environmental ethics is an aspect of religion that has a significant history. However, due to the diversity and localization of these teachings, it is difficult to outline a generalized and unified approach to solving environmental problems using religion alone. This idea of ​​having a multitude of religious ideas within the broad spectrum of environmental ethics is explored in the book article written by Jane Freimiller in the journal Capitalism, Nature, Socialism on the book Earth's Insights: A Multicultural Survey of Ecological Ethics from the Mediterranean Basin to the Australian Outback by J. Baird Callicott. This article discusses the main points of the book: cataloging religious thought systems, providing theoretical justifications for doing so, and reporting on environmental movements that had religious underpinnings. The article characterizes the book as an investigation of the world's beliefs from the perspective of environmental ethics. In the discussion of various perspectives on environmental ethics, the idea of ​​the “mall” dilemma emerges, in which one belief system among the many different beliefs in the world is preferred over another in the grand goal of religious environmentalism. The solution proposed by the book is to integrate all the elements of world religions and harmonize them with modern science (Callicott 152). The author of the article argues that a multicultural investigation of environmental ethics, which takes into account the different opinions of different cultures regarding environmentalism, is a step in the right direction instead of formulating a new integrated environmental ethics, as the book suggests (Freimiller ). Therefore, Freimiller's argument is convincing, since religion is so multifaceted that it is difficult to unify the environmental movement under religion. Instead, an investigation of the world's beliefs regarding environmental ethics seems an appropriate part of the environmental solution that may incorporate religious thinking, but is fundamentally scientific, since science is simple and universal. As demonstrated by the discussion of the two sources above, although religion can positively influence environmental ethics, it is too diverse around the world to form a consensus on environmental ethics. Therefore, science would form the best basis for environmentalism since it is uniform and its evidence is undeniable. The relationship between science and religion in the sphere of environmental ethics is of great importance in the environmental movement. In Rebith of the Sacred: Science, Religion, and the New Environmental Ethos by Robert L. Nadeau, the author argues that to solve the environmental crisis it is essential that society changes its political and economic institutions and adapts to new standards of moral and ethical behavior. Nadeau proposes that the solution can be found if enough people concerned about the environment participate in the dialogue between the truths of science and religion. The truth of science,according to Nadeau, is that it provides a link between the spirituality of religion and the human mind. That is, science can explain the evolutionarily produced cognitive faculties that give human beings “… the capacity to engage in spontaneous moral behavior and to experience the other as oneself” (Nadeau 143). Therefore, Nadeau argues that moral behavior derives intrinsically from nature and not from culture. Regarding the truth of religion, the author states that despite “differences in the narratives of the world's major religious traditions, the deepest religious and moral truths are virtually identical” (Nadeau 145). Therefore, Nadeau believes that all the different religions of the world are interconnected and unified by the same thread of spiritual awareness. The author cited scientific research to align with this idea of ​​common spiritual awareness when he stated the following: “Since the brain scans of Buddhist monks and Catholic nuns were virtually identical, which strongly suggests that they were in very similar people of profound spiritual awareness." Together, the truth of science and the truth of religion can be incorporated into Nadeau's “New Environmental Ethos,” which is the combination of a “spiritual and physical reality.” Those who embrace this ethic, according to Nadeau, will view human pollution as immoral and will see that neuroscience can explain the emotional and unconscious processes that influence human behavior (Nadeau 146). Therefore, Nadeau argues, science is in accord with religious or spiritual morality since science provides the biological explanation for the neurology from which moral thoughts arise. In other words, fundamental scientific truths are fully compatible with spiritual truths, as defined by Nadeau. However, having a common spiritual awareness across different religions may not translate into acting pro-environmentally in the same way. Therefore, discord can arise from differences in approaches to environmental action. This is supported by the fact that Buddhists in the study cited by Nadeau see a different spiritual being than nuns. This may mean that the ways they worship and what they worship may differ and, therefore, the approach they take in environmentalism may differ. For example, one can take direct action while the other takes responsibility. What is essential for the health of the environment and the human population is not different paths of environmental activism that could lead to inefficiency, but rather a unified, well-supported and efficient approach that can lead to a common solution. While Nadeau's “New Environmental Ethos” does not necessarily conflict with the discordance between different religious views that lead to different environmental actions, his thesis treats science and religion as equally important components in environmental ethics, which is not they are, and it is not completely holistic. In his book, Nadeau states that moral reasoning is not the same as proactive moral behavior (Nadeau 147). In this sense, if science is assumed to be the basis of moral behavior, then the basis of environmental action may be predominantly scientific. Thus, the spiritual aspect of the “New Environmental Ethos” is simply an extraneous factor that can serve as a motivator for environmental action. Nadeau's argument about religious environmentalism, which has a strong impact on spirituality, may also face potential conflict with the atheist community. Since environmental change is a global issue, it is necessary to develop a global solution that includes all people. Nadeau's “new environmental ethics” ignores atheists, which is equivalent to ignoring the.