The religion of environmentalism

[Sparks]

OK Mini ......

I don't like bulk quoting but if it helps a point .......

have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.

I absolutely 100% agree with his view of the challenge - "truth from propaganda" .... and we are in a propaganda filled world.

We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real, whether the solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we're told exist are in fact real problems, or non-problems. Every one of us has a sense of the world, and we all know that this sense is in part given to us by what other people and society tell us; in part generated by our emotional state, which we project outward; and in part by our genuine perceptions of reality. In short, our struggle to determine what is true is the struggle to decide which of our perceptions are genuine, and which are false because they are handed down, or sold to us, or generated by our own hopes and fears.

On the nail 100% - couldn't agree more.

The next paragraph he devotes to promoting his own "I'm not against the earth" credentials.

Next we start to get to it.........

I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear.  They can't be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion.

compare that to his previous statement about peoples own "sense of the world"  in particular ..."is in part given to us by what other people and society tell us". This statement is fact to him because he chooses to believe it from his college education.

Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people---the best people, the most enlightened people---do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.

It starts with a sarcastic swipe at aetheists - ( any good politician slides in an atack on the character of his opponents)  then tags on his belief about religious need (see above) - a belief he has hopefully validated by the "college education" label. He then expands that by saying that for a person to have a meaning in their life they require a God or equivalent - a religion.

That is the point he has moved from factual arguement to personal opinion and where I diverge.

Mini - you said

Crichton is pushing the prevelance of science over religion and you're arguing about the definition of religion? I think that's one spot where he nailed it.

I think you need to re-read ...

Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

[/b]

He then spends the next 5 paragraphs aligning his definition of environmentalists to the Christian framework.

he spends the next 13 paragraphs explaining how vulnerable we are in natures raw environement - hardly relevant to a real arguement assessing of the relative value or accuracy of opposing scientific research of environmental impact.

Now he goes back to it ...

But let's return to religion. If Eden is a fantasy that never existed, and mankind wasn't ever noble and kind and loving, if we didn't fall from grace, then what about the rest of the religious tenets? What about salvation, sustainability, and judgment day? What about the coming environmental doom from fossil fuels and global warming, if we all don't get down on our knees and conserve every day?

He then gives the next 5 paragraphs to shotgunned facts that we are expected to take on faith (funny that..).

I can, with a lot of time, give you the factual basis for these views, and I can cite the appropriate journal articles not in whacko magazines, but in the most prestigious science journals, such as Science and Nature.

and blows of any real interest in the sources with ..

.. But such references probably won't impact more than a handful of you, because the beliefs of a religion are not dependent on facts, but rather are matters of faith. Unshakeable belief.

another sarcastic and arrogant swipe at readers who may not follow his idea of the truth - only the enlightened few like him would chose to want more.

Now the scare tactic - the "we all know what they're like and they're out to get you !! " ...

Most of us have had some experience interacting with religious fundamentalists, and we understand that one of the problems with fundamentalists is that they have no perspective on themselves. They never recognize that their way of thinking is just one of many other possible ways of thinking, which may be equally useful or good. On the contrary, they believe their way is the right way, everyone else is wrong; they are in the business of salvation, and they want to help you to see things the right way. They want to help you be saved. They are totally rigid and totally uninterested in opposing points of view. In our modern complex world, fundamentalism is dangerous because of its rigidity and its imperviousness to other ideas.

 A blinding flash of the bleeding obvious put in for emphasis.

The last 7 paragraphs are a good and sensible standpoint. We need to move away from politicised and coporate sponsored reasearch and try to find the truth about how our planet works - yes the truth because I believe WE SIMPLY DON'T KNOW - NOT GREEN PEACE, NOT THE UN, NOT EXXON, NOT THE REPUBLICANS, NOT THE DEMOCRATS - NO-ONE KNOWS

So Lukster

Many of those who have found their new religion in environmentalism consider themselves to be progressive and open minded. That they should be guilty of what they despise in others is simply too repugnant to accept. We saw these same symptoms of denial in the other thread.

 I am not in denial or have any religious belief in tree hugging. What you find hard to accept is that anyone can live without a religious belief - trust me you can.

Mini - I whole-heartedly agree that we as a society handle our enviroment badly and often on poor research or data - in both directions. That lobby groups and minority intersts cause us to ignore good science and promote bad is clear.  But this guys attempt to marginalise these groups by using the religious fundamentalist tag is crude and merely muddies the water. He has sound principles but poor execution.

Sparks

[Mr Big]

read it all.

The guy makes sense and most "global warming, conserve fuel " types don't make sense.

[Mini D]

Gotcha sparks. You dismiss what you don't agree with. He's not defining religion, he's making a very clear comparison to christianity. Very little of that is perception. It really is a direct comparison on most  levels.

As far as fitting "his definition of an environmentalist"... I find that a particularly funny statement. Afterall, the "Religious Right" is responsible for GWB being in the white house... right?

I also like your "he states this as fact" for religion always existing in some form in every culture ever to exist. Hehehehe... name one that didn't. History is a ***** some times.

You're nitpicking some very fundamental things and it just doesn't work.

[lukster]

I never said or implied that no one can live without religious beliefs Sparks. I will say that those who buy into anything with proof, and this includes atheism and environmentalism, are engaging in the practices associated with religion. The degree to which they adhere determines their religiousity. Since you agreed with much of what Chrichton said surely you see the correlation.

[Sparks]

Mini - I believe he DOES make a definition of religion.  To repeat with emphasis

You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.

He then happens to use christianity as the model - he intention is merely to effectively label environmental groups as religious fundamentalists.

In as far as the comparison being direct - and this relates to what I raised about "his definition" - he finds it necessay to build on the Eden principle that it is all flowers and guitar music and that environmentalists believe this is the achievable end point. I don't think that is true and actually devalues his comparison.  Many of the whacko environmentalist groups have "back to nature" agendas but not of the Eden variety.  This is his interpretation to fulfil his comparison.  he has to devote a full 13 paragraphs of examples to argue it.

Afterall, the "Religious Right" is responsible for GWB being in the white house... right?

I'm sorry I don't understand what you are getting at there ...

Yes your probably right  I can't think of a society without a religion in it but his arguement is that because religion is in every society then every individual in the society must have a religious belief - remember

but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious

 This is on an individual level.  I do believe every society has people who do NOT hold a religious belief.

Fundamental things yes - nitpicking no.  

As I said the guy has a sound principle - that environmental measures should be based on sound non-partisan science and not pressure groups - but his method is crude and counter productive.

Lukster ..

I will say that those who buy into anything with proof, and this includes atheism and environmentalism, are engaging in the practices associated with religion.

(I'm assuming you meant without proof)  .. a simply put point and one that Lazs ascribes to - but one I fundamentally disagree with. That is just something we have to disagree on.  From my perpective that makes any simple opinion an act of religion - I don't see it.

As far as Chricton goes - I agree with his core arguement about science and environmental pressure groups, I just think he has fallen into the same trap of pandering to the media and tried to label the people he wishes to discredit as the currently fashionable demon. As I said earlier - pre 9-11 this speech would not have been written. He would do better to discredit them on the basis of the science he wants people to pay attention to.

[lukster]

Yeah, I meant without proof.

I think there's plenty of scientific evidence to indicate our environment goes through cyclic phases of cooling and warming. Predicting catastophic events that can be prevented by our environmentalistic efforts is very similar to the preaching of hell and brimstone. This is undeniable.

[Mini D]

Originally posted by Sparks
Mini - I believe he DOES make a definition of religion.  To repeat with emphasis
He then happens to use christianity as the model - he intention is merely to effectively label environmental groups as religious fundamentalists.

Where did he say "religious fundamentalists"? He's comparing it to religion... you seem to be defining religion as one sect... fundamentalists. I'm pretty sure you'll find people across the whole spectrum of belief from both sides.

In as far as the comparison being direct - and this relates to what I raised about "his definition" - he finds it necessay to build on the Eden principle that it is all flowers and guitar music and that environmentalists believe this is the achievable end point.

At the extreme, that is very much the case. I don't believe he said everyone was the same in that regard... you're just taking it that way.

Many of the whacko environmentalist groups have "back to nature" agendas but not of the Eden variety.  This is his interpretation to fulfil his comparison.  he has to devote a full 13 paragraphs of examples to argue it.

I think you're in a bit of denial here. The "back to nature" agenda is eden based. You're just quibling on exactly what their version eden would be like.

I'm sorry I don't understand what you are getting at there ...

I'm pointing out that christianity is being painted with a very broad extremist brush these days.

Yes your probably right  I can't think of a society without a religion in it but his arguement is that because religion is in every society then every individual in the society must have a religious belief - remember   This is on an individual level.  I do believe every society has people who do NOT hold a religious belief.

I disagree. Once again, you're nitpicking the definition of religion. Everyone holds beliefs outside of the provable. Everyone holds some beliefs contrary to what they are told or what they've been shown. This is a fundamental result of independance and choice. It's a matter of what level they take them too, but they are ALWAYS there. Even the belief that you don't hold any type of religious beliefs is ironic.

As far as Chricton goes - I agree with his core arguement about science and environmental pressure groups, I just think he has fallen into the same trap of pandering to the media and tried to label the people he wishes to discredit as the currently fashionable demon. As I said earlier - pre 9-11 this speech would not have been written. He would do better to discredit them on the basis of the science he wants people to pay attention to.

I think he's pointing out that one end of the spectrum is not nearly as different as the other end as they'd like to believe. That's not to discredit anyone, it's to point out that one should be carefull when throwing around a term like "religious fanatics" while frothing at the mouth.

[Mr Big]

MinD, say what you mean you blow-hard.

[Mini D]

He says christianity, you say religious fundamentalists. You're the one stereotyping and then complaining about the comparison.

Holding a belief is religious. Everyone does it. If you believe you don't, you just don't get it.

If you do something, you do it for a purpose. That purpose is basically your religion, whether you chose to acknowledge that or not. You are typing in response to this man's article because you BELIEVE he is wrong. You BELIEVE that his statements don't coincide with the TRUTH that you understand.

You cannot be devoid of some kind of belief system that dictates your life. It is impossible. There are only those that BELIEVE they are devoid of a belief system.

[Mini D]

Hmmm... a post disappeared.

[Mr Big]

Originally posted by Mini D
Hmmm... a post disappeared.

do you really "believe" that?

[DiabloTX]

I don't BELIEVE you.

[Sparks]

Religious Fundamentalists ? He mentions them here (I've posted this before):

Most of us have had some experience interacting with religious fundamentalists, and we understand that one of the problems with fundamentalists is that they have no perspective on themselves. They never recognize that their way of thinking is just one of many other possible ways of thinking, which may be equally useful or good. On the contrary, they believe their way is the right way, everyone else is wrong; they are in the business of salvation, and they want to help you to see things the right way. They want to help you be saved. They are totally rigid and totally uninterested in opposing points of view. In our modern complex world, fundamentalism is dangerous because of its rigidity and its imperviousness to other ideas.

WOW - you're a bit sensitive about the christian link aren't you ??  His point was not comparing to Christianity specifically - he used the Christian comparison to label the extreme environmental movement as "a" religion and then having given the environmentalist movement religious attributes he tags on fundamentalism.


This is away from the thread topic a bit but you raised it .. twice actually.

Once again, you're nitpicking the definition of religion. Everyone holds beliefs outside of the provable. Everyone holds some beliefs contrary to what they are told or what they've been shown. This is a fundamental result of independance and choice. It's a matter of what level they take them too, but they are ALWAYS there

This is true ... what level they take it to is from an opinion through religion to fanaticism.

Holding a belief is religious. Everyone does it. If you believe you don't, you just don't get it.

To hold any belief is religious ?? that's a bizarre definition.

If you do something, you do it for a purpose. That purpose is basically your religion, whether you chose to acknowledge that or not. You are typing in response to this man's article because you BELIEVE he is wrong. You BELIEVE that his statements don't coincide with the TRUTH that you understand.

Again bizarre - to align an opinion as a religious belief is pretty extreme - to say that to debate a postion is act of religious faith is ...... I don't have words .....

You cannot be devoid of some kind of belief system that dictates your life. It is impossible.

 That is your view, and your view only as a person of religious faith (I'm guessing you are). What do you find so threatening about the idea that someone rejects that concept? Why do you feel you need to prove to that person they actually DO have a religion ? Or to ridicule them if they say they don't ?

[Mini D]

He defines fundamentalism and then says how FUNDAMENTALISM is the same on both sides of the camp. The exact same religion with a different set of values inserted.

As for sensitive about Christianity... yeah.. I guess so. Seeing as how I can't help but feel you meant that as a dig of some sort. Which, of course, is becoming more and more the norm.

NOT ALL ENVIRONMENTALISTS THINK THAT WAY! when he's talking about fundamentalists and then pretending that all Christians do is, well, odd.

The fact that people are feeling insulted because they are being compared to Christians is... well... odd. It begins to explain exactly what the author is getting at, but you just don't get it.

[Mini D]

Sparks,

On what do you base your value system? Science? I mean... science defines your entire belief structure? Really?

Do you think there's anyone out there that actually believes that?

Everyone has a set of beliefs they operate under. Science does not tell you not to murder someone, not to steal, not to rape. That is a fundamental belief in something... good maybe? I wonder what scientist cooked that up.