by Lewis Loflin
Spiritual ecology, an emerging field that merges religion, conservation, and academia, seeks to infuse ecological issues with spiritual elements, asserting a “spiritual facet” to conservation and earth stewardship. While well-intentioned, this approach fundamentally conflicts with empirical science, which relies on observed facts and the scientific method, not spiritualism or ideology. As a Deist, I’ve consistently critiqued the blending of spiritual ecology with science—seen in figures like Al Gore and Pope Francis—as a distortion of reason, echoing the quasi-religious tendencies of environmentalism I’ve explored in my previous articles. This article examines the clash between spiritual ecology and science, emphasizing the need for empirical evidence, the cyclical nature of climate, and practical solutions free from ideological agendas.
Proponents of spiritual ecology argue that contemporary conservation must include spiritual elements, and that religion should engage with ecological issues. However, science has nothing to do with spiritualism, as I’ve argued in my ecoreligion and greenreligion articles (*Science Under Siege*, p. 358). The real dispute lies between empirical science—based on observed data and open debate—and hypothetical computer models often driven by the “authority” of experts. I reject the merging of social science, spiritualism, and socialist ideology into science, a trend exemplified by eco-crackpots like Pope Francis, who advocate for such thinking, and Al Gore, whose *Earth in the Balance* epitomizes this distortion.
Gore writes, “As it happens, the idea of social justice is inextricably linked in the Scriptures with ecology,” blending religious mysticism (Eastern, New Age, American Indian), far-left politics, and a misuse of science to lend authority to his beliefs (*Earth in the Balance*). Science has nothing to do with social justice, and ecology, like sociology, fails the scientific method—it’s not a hard science but a field often co-opted by ideology. This mirrors the spiritual ecology movement’s attempt to elevate subjective beliefs over objective facts, a trend I’ve critiqued as part of environmentalism’s quasi-religious agenda.
Dr. Marcel Kuntz, Director of Research at CNRS in France, voices concern over this issue, stating, “Postmodernism considers that scientists cannot be trusted, and that their research must be subject to a democratic process, more precisely to a ‘participative democracy’” (*Postmodernism Attacks Reason, Science, and Culture*). The scientific method is not democratic—it relies on empirical evidence, not public opinion or spiritual beliefs. Yet, spiritual ecology and its postmodern allies seek to subordinate science to ideological oversight, a dangerous trend that undermines objectivity.
A 2015 Rasmussen Reports survey, *Little Support for Punishing Global Warming Foes*, reveals the alarming extent of this mindset: 27% of Democrats, 11% of Republicans, and 12% of independents favor prosecuting scientists and corporations who question global warming, with 15% undecided. That 32% even consider such measures is chilling, reflecting a climate of fear where skepticism—a scientific virtue—is branded as heresy, as I’ve noted in my lovelockbacktrack article. James Lovelock himself criticized this, stating, “It’s become a religion, and religions don’t worry too much about facts” (*The Guardian*, 3/30/2014).
Spiritual ecology often fuels climate alarmism, relying on hypothetical computer models that ignore natural variability, as I’ve critiqued in my homeostasis and lovelockbacktrack articles. Climate is cyclical, as evidenced by historical periods like the Hypsithermal (9,000–6,000 years ago), which saw temperatures 2°C warmer than today, enabling the spread of agriculture (*Earth System History*, p. 508), and rapid shifts during the Ice Age (*Earth System History*, p. 468). The Sporer Minimum (1460–1500), Maunder Minimum (1645–1715), and Dalton Minimum (1790–1830) marked prolonged cooling, exacerbated by volcanic eruptions like Laki (1783–84), Tambora (1815), and Krakatoa (1883), which caused global temperature drops and crop failures (*The Great Extinctions*, p. 59).
These events, as I’ve explored in my climateshifts article, led to glacier expansion, and their melting today is a return to normal, not a crisis. Antarctica, which radiates massive heat into space and influences global currents, has seen record sea ice growth, with 2014 peaking at 7.78 million square miles (*Washington Post*, 10/7/2014). Yet, reports often downplay this, focusing on Arctic ice loss since 1979—a cherry-picked baseline after a cooling period—to exaggerate warming. The 1975 National Academy of Sciences study notes a 0.6°C cooling from 1940 to 1975, followed by a 0.75°C rise since 1975, a net increase of just 0.15°C since 1940 (*NASA Earth Observatory*), as I’ve detailed in my Southwest Virginia article.
Incidents like the 2013 research vessel stuck in record Antarctic ice during summer, and the 2016 Polar Ocean Challenge halted by Arctic ice, contradict alarmist predictions (*The Daily Caller*, 7/20/2016). These events, ignored by computer models, highlight the need for empirical data over speculative modeling, a principle spiritual ecology dismisses in favor of ideological narratives.
Spiritual ecology’s reliance on politicized science undermines its credibility, as I’ve critiqued in my lovelockbacktrack article. Computer models, often proprietary and inaccessible, fail to account for natural causes, focusing solely on human-induced factors (*Science Under Siege*, p. 359). The *Journal Nature* admits uncertainty, stating, “Despite this cooling trend, scientists say global warming has not necessarily ended,” reflecting the confusion caused by models that predicted warming, not cooling, in Antarctica. This mirrors the broader trend of adjusting data to fit narratives, as seen with NOAA and NASA (*NASA Earth Observatory*).
Historical alarmist predictions, fueled by spiritual ecology’s fearmongering, have consistently failed, as I’ve noted in my Southwest Virginia article. In the 1970s, claims of resource depletion by 2000 were disproven by technological advancements; peak oil fears were debunked by hydraulic fracturing, making the U.S. the largest natural gas producer; and overpopulation predictions for 1990 and 2000 failed, with the Green Revolution and increased CO2 boosting global food production. Recent shortages, like in Sri Lanka in 2022, stem from green politics, not climate, as I’ve argued. The World Health Organization (2016) ranks the U.S. as the least polluting developed nation, second only to Canada, while China, India, and Brazil remain the real polluters.
The *John William Pope Center*’s article, *The Academic-Governmental Complex*, highlights how government funding distorts scientific priorities: “Federal funding can actually pervert the direction and outcome of scientific research… in some cases they want to see successful results even before making the grant” (*The Academic-Governmental Complex*). In 1930, federal grants were 10% of a $51 million university research budget; by 2008, they were 60% of $51.9 billion—$31 billion annually. This compromises objectivity, as I’ve seen in Southwest Virginia, where tens of millions in public funds for green energy research produced nothing, driven by money, not science, as I’ve critiqued in my swva_environmentalism article.
Spiritual ecology exacerbates this by infusing research with ideological agendas, prioritizing “social justice” and spiritualism over empirical evidence. This mirrors the broader trend of environmentalism as a quasi-religious movement, as I’ve detailed in my ecoreligion article, where figures like Gore and Pope Francis elevate subjective beliefs over objective facts (*Science Under Siege*, p. 358). The result is a science compromised by politics, where dissent is punished, as evidenced by the 32% of Americans who support prosecuting climate skeptics (*Rasmussen Reports*, 11/12/2015).
As a Deist, I approach science with a focus on reason and empirical data, rejecting the spiritual ecology movement’s merger of spiritualism, social justice, and socialist ideology with science. Climate cycles, from the Hypsithermal to the Little Ice Age, show that change is natural, not catastrophic, as I’ve explored in my hypsithermal and climateshifts articles. Earth’s resilience, through mechanisms like homeostasis, ensures stability, as I’ve detailed in my homeostasis article—CO2 at 0.04% is dwarfed by water vapor at 40,000 PPM (*NASA*, 11/17/2008). Modern concerns must be addressed affordably, as I’ve argued in my Appalachia article—starving communities cannot prioritize environmental ideals over survival.
Practical solutions, like nuclear power and hydraulic fracturing, which Lovelock supports, offer a path forward, reducing emissions without economic devastation, as I’ve advocated in my naturalfission and lovelockbacktrack articles (*Science Under Siege*, p. 356). Environmentalism’s technophobia, rejecting such technologies, and its quasi-religious spiritualism hinder progress, as I’ve critiqued. Research must be driven by reason, not political agendas or hysteria, ensuring transparency to prevent the misuse of science for ideological ends.
Spiritual ecology’s attempt to merge spiritualism with science distorts the pursuit of truth, prioritizing ideology over empirical evidence. By focusing on reason, the cyclical nature of climate, and Earth’s resilience, we can address environmental challenges with practical, affordable solutions free from religious-style hysteria. Science must be cleaned of government interference and ideological agendas, ensuring it serves humanity with objectivity and purpose. With reason as our guide, we can achieve a sustainable balance that honors both the planet and its people.
Updated 2025 by Lewis Loflin.
Acknowledgment: I’d like to thank Grok, an AI by xAI, for helping me draft and refine this article. The final edits and perspective are my own.
Click to Visit!
