The modern view of nature has religious roots

October 25, 2012

All over the planet, people are fighting to save animals and plants from extinction – even though many species have no utilitarian value for us. In a new book, University of Copenhagen theologian Jakob Wolf takes up this aspect of the climate debate in the context of a religious ethic that spans cultures and religions.

"Some people would claim the modern climate debate is rooted in our desire to survive. But when it comes to the diversity of species, this argument simply doesn't hold water. An orchid from the Cayman Islands, a blue-black pheasant from Vietnam or Javan has no impact on the or the global ecosystem. We only become emotionally caught up in their fight for survival because of a reverence for life rooted in our perception of the world as a work of creation and life as sacred and inviolable," says University of Copenhagen theologian Jakob Wolf in connection with the release of his new book in which he has collected a number of essays on phenomenology, science, ecology and theology.

The modern view of nature and the debate about and sustainability are based largely on a scientific approach towards the world. However, ethical and emotional approaches to nature also colour these discussions. For example, documentaries about ice melting at the poles appeal to our emotions by showing having trouble finding food for their young.

Existence Value

The International Union for Conservation and Nature (IUNC) report 'Priceless or Worthless' (September 2012) describes the 100 most threatened species of animals and plants. It stresses the duty of people to safeguard these species of the world even if they serve no function.

"The desire to safeguard species of animals and plants that we don't have any apparent need for is an aspect of the modern climate debate that is based on a religious ethic," says Wolf.

Every living species represents one unique pathway to success developed over millions of years. What we lose with each passing species can never be replaced," Professor Georgina Mace, CBE, FRS, quote from the report

In the introduction to the IUNC report, Professor Jonathan Bailie, of Oxford University, highlights that these species are of no utilitarian value to us and do nothing but represent what he calls 'existence value'. According to Wolf, the concept of nature and species of wildlife being intrinsically valuable reflects an ethical approach to nature that differs distinctly from a scientific perspective.

"Science describes how the world is but it doesn't tell us how it should be. The concept of existence value clearly expresses a view that prescribes a certain course of action – a duty to protect endangered species. Whereas a scientist observes a flower in the garden and sees photosynthesis, those of us with an ethical view of the world see an irreplaceable work of art that appeals to our admiration and respect. The concept of the world as being something other than, and more than, the sum of matter is largely metaphysical or religious," Wolf says.

Explore further: Washington state prepares for gray wolves

Related Stories

Grey wolf withdrawn from US endangered list

May 4, 2009

The grey wolf was Monday taken off the US list of endangered species, making a comeback 35 years after it virtually disappeared and can now be hunted in most US states, officials said.

Drawing connections between food webs

April 4, 2012

Ecosystems today face various threats, from climate change to invasive species to encroaching civilization. If we hope to protect these systems and the species that live in them, we must understand them — an extremely ...

100 most threatened species: Are they priceless or worthless?

September 10, 2012

For the first time ever, more than 8,000 scientists from the IUCN Species Survival Commission (IUCN SSC) have come together to identify 100 of the most threatened animals, plants and fungi on the planet. But conservationists ...

Recommended for you

A common mechanism for human and bird sound production

November 27, 2015

When birds and humans sing it sounds completely different, but now new research reported in the journal Nature Communications shows that the very same physical mechanisms are at play when a bird sings and a human speaks.


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

4.5 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2012
I find "religious" an odd choice of words. It is certainly a moral and ethical calculation, but in no way is it intrinsically religious. Would a "scientific" logic turn a blind eye to the wanton extinguishing of a species? That seems ridiculous. And what if a species' ecological niche has disappeared? Is saving that species playing God? Perhaps. Is it unscientific? No. Even the article admits that science does not prescribe how the world should be.
5 / 5 (6) Oct 25, 2012
It is a book (!) from a theologian, so it has no evidence, so is meaningless and doesn't belong on a science site.

But if you are too eager with publishing press releases, "evil" things like this will happen. Why religious keep insisting the world is based on meaningless, random coincidences of pattern search (at best) instead of observable and meaningful physics is astounding.
1 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2012
The modern view of nature has religious roots
The Big Bang models or simulation Universe are creationists and religious too. The whole concept of existence is connected with assumption of formation and occasional decay, despite it often brings more questions than answers...
5 / 5 (4) Oct 26, 2012
It's simply another attempt to hijack any positive morality as being religious in nature.
2 / 5 (1) Oct 27, 2012
Anyone who writes off a species as disposable without knowing what unique proteins it has the code for or what biological tricks it employs is a short-sighted fool.
1 / 5 (2) Oct 27, 2012
It's simply another attempt to hijack any positive morality as being religious in nature.
For believers their religion is always perceived as a positive morality of highest degree. The belief in Big Bang or creation is therefore perceived as perfectly moral for their believers naturally. For proponents of scientific method such a stance is amoral instead, because the Big Bang believers should deal with attempts for alternative explanations and falsification of their theory all the time. In Popper's methodology every theory is good only for its own disapproval.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.