The media often covers climate change by focusing on extremes, such as activists stopping traffic to warn of a climate disaster or elected leaders dismissing it entirely. When discussing how climate change impacts human beings, one deeper question escapes attention: Do human beings exist in the first place?
The answer might sound obvious. But atheism is the real denier—not just of climate change, but of existence itself. The initial mistake of denying God skews subsequent actions by eliminating both people and purpose. After detailing why this is the case, I will explain how the Catholic Church’s strong metaphysical foundation offers a path forward. This path provides stirring motivation to care for the planet and invites Catholics and secular activists alike to work together.
Atheism’s contradictions begin with metaphysics, the branch of philosophy that deals with the fundamental building blocks of reality. Metaphysics focuses on first principles, asking questions such as “Why is there something rather than nothing?” “How do we define consciousness?” and “What exists?” Taken to its logical conclusion, atheism incinerates this branch and boldly answers the last question: “nothing.”
Theologian and philosopher Conor Cunningham (and others before him) convincingly argue that if atheism is true, then materialism must be true. Materialists believe that matter at the subatomic level is all that exists, but if that’s accurate, “existence” itself becomes illusory. If everything is just lumps of matter, then problems arise. Or, rather, problems vanish, as do people. For if all things are merely piles of matter, it no longer becomes possible to say that this bunch is a car, that bit over there is a rock, and another blob is “Bob”—a scientist who claims climate change is real and a threat to human beings. The more elusive the definition of “matter,” the more a materialist metaphysics collapses into a collection of absurd conclusions: no objective morality, no consciousness, and no existence.
As Cunningham explains in his book, Darwin’s Pious Idea, materialism “is not a true thesis but something more like fashion, taste, hubris, and wishful thinking. In short, what at first glance appears to be all ruddy, full of the meat of the earth, dealing only in the soil of the empirical, is rather more ephemeral, immaterial, if you will, at least insofar as it is an ideal, if anything at all.” In a materialist universe, attempts to identify one collection of matter as a person and another as a Porsche collapse into incoherence. As the Apostolic Constitution of the Church states, “For without the Creator the creature would disappear.”
Atheism is the real denier of both people and purpose. Far from being a caricature, some leading atheist philosophers explicitly make such arguments. In The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, for example, Alex Rosenberg declares that reality is “What physics says it is.” He then follows this claim to its logical conclusions: life has no meaning or purpose, and objective morality and free will aren’t real. He goes on: “There is no self, soul, person. Scientism must firmly deny its existence. The self, as conveyed to us by introspection, is a fiction. It doesn’t exist.” This ontological wasteland is atheism’s final destination.
Climate activism built on atheism’s shaky metaphysical footing is self-defeating: unable to account for the existence of a person, or of climate change, or of any moral responsibility to care for the Earth.
Devotion to these intellectual consequences proves difficult in practice. Atheism subjects our existence to a question mark and undercuts any moral imperative to do anything. That is significant because it hampers the ability to tackle any problem, let alone address a challenge as large as climate change. Atheism’s metaphysical foundation is riddled with confusion because it rejects God, who is truth, goodness, and beauty. A worldview that forsakes this grounding becomes untethered from reality, ultimately declaring increasingly bold lies—such as proclaiming that purpose, free will, and the self are illusions. However, atheists go about their lives denying these dogmas, as if they have a self that can indeed make daily choices toward their preferred ends. It is impossible to live out a worldview that denies the possibility of living.
The contradictions of atheism’s metaphysics affect all subsequent policy discussions, because the incoherence of this foundation can only lead to further confusion. Take the activism surrounding climate change. Some secular climate activists push for population control to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and almost all assume that supporting abortion is consistent with caring for nature. I am not arguing that atheism directly leads to specific policy positions; I am arguing that atheism leads to increasing confusion that begets a variety of conflicting takes and introduces significant creep into one’s aims and mission.
The Center for Biological Diversity claims that, “Human population growth and consumption are at the root of our most pressing environmental crises, but they’re often left out of the conversation. We can fight to curb climate change, stop habitat loss, and clean up pollution, but if we don’t also fight for reproductive justice for those most severely harmed by these environmental crises . . . it’ll remain an uphill battle we can’t win.”
While the Sierra Club rejects population control as a climate solution, it is unabashedly pro-abortion—along with other prominent climate organizations like the National Resources Defense Council and Greenpeace.
Secular climate activism that calls for population control and defending abortion sends the confusing message that there is no conflict between protecting nature and viewing human life as disposable. This message, in turn, hinders our response to climate change by fueling anxiety and fear about how climate change will affect us. Climate anxiety leads many to question whether they want to start families.
A Nottingham University study shows that 47 percent of U.S. adults think they should not have children or regret having had children because of climate concerns. Climate anxiety-induced doubts about procreating are even more troubling because populations are declining in both developed and developing countries.
Climate activism built on atheism’s shaky metaphysical footing is self-defeating: unable to account for the existence of a person, or of climate change, or of any moral responsibility to care for the Earth.
The past two popes have offered a hope-filled alternative, built on strong first principles, that confronts the climate problem while championing human life.
Pope Benedict XVI’s Caritas in veritate (Charity in Truth) laments “the rejection of metaphysics by the human sciences.” He adds, “Without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is.” We cannot understand who we are apart from God, let alone gain perspective over a problem like climate change.
In the same encyclical, Pope Benedict clarifies that “the truth of ourselves, of our personal conscience, is first of all given to us. In every cognitive process, truth is not something that we produce, it is always found, or better, received.” And in his lecture at the University of Regensburg, Benedict explains this truth flows from God—the logos, who is both reason and word—to us. God creates the universe and allows us, made in His image, to comprehend reality. Instead of attempting to assemble subjective truth ourselves, God provides us with objective truth and the ability to comprehend it. With this metaphysical foundation, we can say that human beings exist, climate change is a threat to us, and that we have a moral obligation to address it.
Establishing sturdy first principles based on the Church’s wisdom makes life possible and clarifies our relationship to the planet. There is something rather than nothing because God willed it. God created everything—not because He needed to, but because He wanted to. And this God, who loves us dearly, has commanded us to care for our terrestrial home and honor human life. Caritas in veritate puts it beautifully: “The environment is God’s gift to everyone, and in our use of it we have a responsibility towards the poor, towards future generations and towards humanity as a whole.” Protecting the environment and human life go together.
Pope Francis’ Laudato si’, operating with the same first principles as Pope Benedict, builds on this point: “Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties?” We should not sacrifice humanity for the environment’s sake. We should safeguard the environment for everyone’s sake.
The point here is not to divide Catholics and secular climate activists but to offer a blueprint for common ground. Secular climate activists are often more vocal than Catholics about the issue. Catholics should support our secular brothers and sisters who want to steward the planet, while respectfully but confidently challenging their metaphysics and any misanthropic policies. Honest dialogue will lead to a better understanding of each other and depolarize the climate conversation.
At this point, however, some Catholics might disagree that climate change is worth tackling or happening at all. First, our metaphysical convictions demand that we respect creation. Paragraph 2415 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear: “Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.”
Second, while it is easy to disregard various apocalyptic pronouncements about climate change that have failed to happen, it is difficult to ignore the signs of climate impacts all around us. Consider a few examples: changing bird migration patterns, fewer days to ice fish in Wisconsin, and D.C. Cherry Blossoms reaching peak bloom earlier and earlier.
Armed with the Church’s insights, that the creator God who loves us is the grounding of reality and source of objective truth, Catholics are equipped to engage secular culture on climate change. We should slice through simplistic debates by highlighting that without the correct first principles, both human beings and climate change vanish.
In charity and truth, we can explain that secular climate activists care for the planet despite their metaphysics, not because of them. We can then invite all to work with us, caring for our common home together. It is God alone who makes our existence possible and plants the seeds of environmental stewardship in our hearts—including those who deny Him.
