Science Should Be Based on Facts, Not Spiritual Beliefs

Introduction

Science should be about facts and measurable processes, not spiritual beliefs or feelings about Nature. Some environmental activists reject this approach, treating Nature as sacred and opposing technologies like nuclear power and GMOs, even when they help people and the planet. I believe science should focus on what works, putting human welfare first, not spiritual ideas that don’t belong in policy. This page explains why science needs to stay grounded in facts, the problems with mixing spiritual beliefs into environmentalism, and how we can use proven solutions to improve lives.

What Is Mechanistic Science?

Mechanistic science is the idea that nature works like a machine, with parts that can be studied and measured to understand how they function together. It focuses on facts—like how a cell works or how energy is produced—not on ideas like Nature having a spiritual value. This approach has driven modern technology, from the computer you’re using to the medicines that save lives. It’s based on the scientific method: testing ideas with experiments and data, not feelings or beliefs.

Mechanistic science has helped humans thrive. For example, affordable energy from fossil fuels and nuclear power has reduced the need to cut down billions of trees for firewood or clear forests for low-yield farming. By focusing on what can be measured and proven, science has improved human welfare while also protecting the environment in practical ways.

Spiritual Beliefs in Environmentalism

Some environmental activists mix spiritual beliefs into their views, treating Nature as if it’s sacred or divine. They might follow ideas like pantheism, which sees the universe—or Nature—as a kind of god. For example, James Hansen, a well-known climate scientist at NASA, has said Nature has rights, like a person does. Al Gore, in his 1992 book “Earth in the Balance,” also blends spiritual ideas with environmental policy, suggesting Nature has an inherent value beyond its use to humans. These views aren’t based on science—they’re more like a belief system, similar to religion.

This approach can cloud scientific discussions. Science isn’t about finding “meaning” in Nature or deciding if it has dignity—it’s about understanding how things work through data and experiments. When spiritual beliefs influence policy, they can lead to decisions that ignore facts, like rejecting technologies that could help both people and the environment.

Impacts of Rejecting Mechanistic Science

Rejecting mechanistic science can have serious consequences. In 2021, Sri Lanka banned chemical fertilizers, pushing for organic farming based on ideas that Nature should be left untouched by modern methods. The result was a disaster: rice production dropped 20%, food prices soared by 90%, and the country faced widespread hunger. This shows how ignoring science for spiritual beliefs can harm people, especially the poorest who need affordable food the most.

Another example is the rejection of nuclear power, despite its potential to provide clean energy. The U.S. has about 92,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel in storage, which still holds energy potential. Globally, there are also 1.6 million tons of depleted uranium—a byproduct of uranium enrichment—that can be used in fast reactors or blended with other fuels. Thorium, a naturally abundant material with an estimated 6 million tons worldwide, can be used in certain reactors to produce energy. Just 28 grams of nuclear fuel—like uranium or thorium—can produce as much energy as 1,750 tons of coal, cutting CO2 emissions by 3,650 tons. Using these resources could reduce environmental damage from mining and lower emissions, but opposition often ignores these facts in favor of beliefs about Nature.

Genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, face similar resistance. A scientist named Mae-Wan Ho once claimed GMOs disrupt Nature’s natural processes, but her views weren’t based on solid evidence. In 2016, the National Academies of Sciences found GMOs are safe and help grow more food with fewer resources. As I’ve shown before, human influence—like higher CO2 levels—has led to global greening, increasing leaf area by 7% since 2000 and boosting crop yields by 10–20%. Nature adapts to change, and science can help us use these changes for good, not treat them as a moral failing.

Conclusion

Science should be about facts, not spiritual beliefs that treat Nature as sacred. When environmental policies are based on ideas like Nature having rights, they can lead to harmful decisions, like Sri Lanka’s organic farming crisis, or missed opportunities, like rejecting nuclear power and GMOs. Mechanistic science—focused on measurable processes—has given us tools to improve human welfare while protecting the environment, like using nuclear fuel, depleted uranium, and thorium to cut CO2 emissions or GMOs to grow more food. We need environmental policies grounded in data and reason, putting people first, not beliefs that ignore the benefits of science and human influence.

Introduction

What Is Mechanistic Science?

Spiritual Beliefs in Environmentalism

Impacts of Rejecting Mechanistic Science

Conclusion

Share This Article