Over the years spanning from the 20th to the 21st century, global climate change and environmental degradation have progressively worsened due to human activity. Fracking, emissions, industries, modern agriculture, and poor waste management are just a few of the many devastating ways in which the human community has contributed to Earth's environmental decline. Evidence of climate change cited by NASA includes: rising sea levels, increasing global temperatures, warming oceans, shrinking ice sheets, declining Arctic sea ice, ice retreat, extreme weather events, ocean acidification, and decreasing snow cover (“Evidence for Climate Change”). These multitudes of scientific evidence support the phenomenon of global warming, making it an unequivocal phenomenon that has serious consequences for the health of the Earth and, therefore, for the well-being of the global human community in its survival on the planet. Earth. Despite the abundant evidence of climate change and environmental degradation, there are still populations who deny the validity of global warming based on personal or religious beliefs. Whatever the reason for their disbelief, the issue of global climate and the environment. the change does not fundamentally involve a belief, but rather is a matter of scientific fact. The radical change in the Earth's environment is a phenomenon without borders and has sparked global concern. Unless greater awareness is raised and greater environmental measures are taken, the environmental state of the Earth will only deteriorate. Thus, global climate change and environmental pollution are part of an ongoing, serious and urgent problem that demands collective action by the international community, regardless of religious or ethical differences. This is not to say that religion cannot play a role in motivating people to take environmental action, as some religious teachings certainly emphasize the importance of environmental ethics. Western religions teach that humans must show the same concern that the Creator has for them. For example, the biblical teaching of mutual care for others, “love your neighbor as yourself,” and the idea of ​​the sacraments, or Christian expressions of divine love, can be oriented toward concern for the environment. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Although religious thoughts and beliefs can influence environmental ethics, its fundamental guide must be scientific. In other words, although religion may provide reasons for taking action in favor of the environment, science provides the most correct reasons and should therefore act as a key motivator. Unlike religion, science provides universally undeniable evidence of the fragile reality of the Earth and this evidence should be the true driving force for morally correct action in the environmental movement, demanding the participation of the global community as a whole, regardless individual moral or religious principles. Therefore, the need for environmental ethics and action owes more to the fact that they are essential to human survival than to a matter of moral choice or obligation guided by religious thought.One of the main opponents to taking widespread and effective environmental action is social provision. , policy and legislation. Because religion is viewed with bias and controversy in the mainstream media, and therefore in society, it would be neither substantial nor appropriate as the primary advocate of environmental ethics. Debate about what is right or wrong and what one religion teaches better than another would hinder adequate environmental progress. A scholarly work that has brought about major social change through public awareness and, therefore, 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 describes the process by which DDT enters the food chain and accumulates in the fatty tissues of animals, including humans, and causes cancer and genetic damage. Expecting major backlash from the chemical companies producing DDT, Carson gathered a massive amount of evidence to support his writings, which led to a government investigation and ultimately the banning of DDT. One of the major legacies of Carson and Silent Spring is a new public awareness of environmentalism. With knowledge and this new awareness, everyone now had the potential to implement major social change. In chapter 17 of Carson's book, she states the following: “We now find ourselves where two roads diverge. But unlike the roads of Robert Frost's familiar poem, they are not equally fair. The road we have been traveling for a long time is deceptively easy, a smooth highway on which we progress at great speed, but at its end lies disaster. The other fork in the road – the one less traveled – offers our last, our only chance to reach a destination that ensures the preservation of the earth” (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 the elements of an effective formula for implementing massive environmental change. In writing Silent Spring, Carson provides the middle part of the formula, thereby changing the course of environmental activism for the better. The current environmental situation is similar to that of DDT in that society has all the evidence it needs to act and, indeed, has made great strides in mediating the global climate change crisis. Therefore, following Rachel Carson's model of using science to educate the public, modern environmental ethics does not need religious guidance since morality – right or wrong – does not depend on religion, and science can provide the middle part of the discussed formula for implementing social measures. change. This is not to say that environmental ethics cannot be at least partially influenced by religious teachings, as this would not interfere with large-scale environmental action. Although religion should not provide the basis for environmental ethics, it certainly has its merits in this sense. this can motivate individuals to adopt positive environmental changes under the moral guidance of their religion. 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 inreligious teachings. They argue that due to the modernization of societies, traditional religious attitudes towards nature have mostly disappeared. The conference featured various writings on the issue of religious environmentalism and ultimately concluded that environmental action is an essential part of religion. Warner and DeCosse argue that Western religious institutions have failed to establish a "religious justification for environmental protection" but have since posited that the ecological crisis is a moral obligation for all human beings. They also argue that environmental action is a sacrament or an “expression of divine love” since the creation of the entire world has religious significance for the religious community (Warner & DeCosse). The position mainly held is that the environmental ethics part of religion is something ancient and lost, but in need of a revival to solve environmental problems in our modern world. Warner and DeCosse argue that the incorporation of environmental activism into religious education is a phenomenon that occurs in almost all religions, but it is difficult to draw general conclusions. This is due to the variety of religions on the planet and the fact that many environmental religious teachings and ethical practices are on a local scale while climate change is a problem on a global scale (Warner & DeCosse). So, as this Santa Clara conference explains, environmental ethics is an aspect of religion that has an important history. However, due to the diversity and localization of these teachings, it is difficult to develop 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 article written by Jane Freimiller in the journal Capitalism, Nature, Socialism about 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 addresses the main points of the book: cataloging religious systems of thought, providing a theoretical rationale for doing so, and reporting on religiously supported environmental movements. The article describes the book as an investigation into global beliefs from the perspective of environmental ethics. In the discussion of different perspectives on environmental ethics, the idea of ​​the "mall" dilemma arises, where one belief system among the many varied beliefs in the world is chosen over another in the grand goal of environmental sustainability. religious environmentalism. The solution proposed by the book is to integrate all elements of the world's religions and harmonize them with modern science (Callicott 152). The author of the article argues that a multicultural inquiry into environmental ethics, which takes into account the divergent views of several cultures regarding environmentalism, is a step in the right direction instead of formulating a new ethic integrated environmental movement, as the book (Freimiller) suggests. Therefore, Freimiller's argument is compelling, because religion is so multifaceted that it is difficult to unify the environmental movement under the umbrella of religion. Instead, a study of global beliefs regarding environmental ethics seems to be an appropriate part of the environmental solution that can incorporate religious thought, but it is fundamentally scientific, because science is simple and universal. As the analysis of the two sources above demonstrates,Although religion can positively influence environmental ethics, it is too varied across the world to form a consensus on environmental ethics. Thus, science would provide the best basis for environmentalism because it is uniform and its evidence is undeniable. The relationship between science and religion in the field 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 resolve the environmental crisis, it is essential that society changes its political and economic institutions as well as adapts to new standards of moral and ethical behavior. Nadeau proposes that the solution can be found if enough people who care about the environment participate in the dialogue between the truths of science and religion. The truth of science, according to Nadeau, is that it establishes a link between the spirituality of religion and the human spirit. That is, science can account for the cognitive faculties produced during evolution that give humans "...the capacity to engage in spontaneous moral behavior and to experience the other as well as the self -even” (Nadeau 143). Thus, Nadeau argues that moral behavior arises intrinsically from nature and not from nurture. Regarding religious truth, the author asserts that despite "the differences in the accounts of the world's major religious traditions, the deepest religious and moral truths are virtually identical" (Nadeau 145). Thus, Nadeau believes that all of the world's diverse religions are interconnected and unified by the same thread of spiritual consciousness. The author cited scientific research to align with this idea of ​​common spiritual consciousness when he stated the following: "Since the brain scans of Buddhist monks and Catholic nuns were virtually identical, strongly suggesting that they were in very similar states of deep 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". According to Nadeau, those who adopt this philosophy will view human pollution as immoral and understand that neuroscience can explain the emotional and unconscious processes that influence human behavior (Nadeau 146). Thus, Nadeau argues, science is consistent with religious or spiritual morality to the extent that it provides the biological explanation of the neurology from which moral thoughts arise. In other words, fundamental scientific truths are entirely compatible with spiritual truths as defined by Nadeau. However, having a common spiritual awareness across different religions does not necessarily translate into environmental action in the same way. Thus, discord can arise from differences in approaches to environmental action. This is supported by the fact that the Buddhists in the study mentioned by Nadeau see a different spiritual being than the nuns. This may mean that how and what they worship may differ and therefore the approach they take to environmentalism may differ. For example, one may act directly while the other takes care of advocacy. What is essential for the health of the environment and the human population is not different paths of environmental activism that can lead to ineffectiveness, but rather a unified, well-supported and effective approach that can lead to a common solution. GOOD..