Just to clarify, analytic philosophy is in contrast to continental philosophy. The former is more scientific and logical while the latter is more literary. Analytic philosophers are generally committed to philosophical naturalism, meaning that they think nature is metaphysically fundamental, that science is our primary source of empirical knowledge, and that there are no miracles.

The scientists and mathematicians who are theists tend to be mystical, meaning that they dismiss the exoteric, literalistic, naive person’s conception of God. That mysticism is often functionally equivalent to atheism, as Spinoza’s pantheism in effect showed.

I agree that science alone isn’t to blame for the environmental catastrophe, but science doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Scientists’ intentions may be to help our species, but their work is part of a political and economic system that includes the technological applications.

Moreover, I’d argue that the progressive motive of modern science is instrumentalistic, which means we define progress in terms of the extent to which we control our environment. That motive is foundational to our negative impact on the environment, in which case science itself is indeed a big part of the problem.