[Psudo]

You often here conservative politicians (or politics geeks like us) suggesting that environmentalism has become a modern religion. Yeah, yeah, it has ethics tied to it, we concede, but it has science tied to it, too. It's not the same.

Today, I found this:

Freeman Dyson wrote:

There is a worldwide secular religion which we may call environmentalism, holding that we are stewards of the earth, that despoiling the planet with waste products of our luxurious living is a sin, and that the path of righteousness is to live as frugally as possible. The ethics of environmentalism are being taught to children in kindergartens, schools, and colleges all over the world.
[. . .]
Environmentalism, as a religion of hope and respect for nature, is here to stay. This is a religion that we can all share, whether or not we believe that global warming is harmful.

Unfortunately, some members of the environmental movement have also adopted as an article of faith the be-lief that global warming is the greatest threat to the ecology of our planet. That is one reason why the arguments about global warming have become bitter and passionate. Much of the public has come to believe that anyone who is skeptical about the dangers of global warming is an enemy of the environment. The skeptics now have the difficult task of convincing the public that the opposite is true.

Who is Freeman Dyson? He has a bio and a wikipedia page, but he's probably best known as the scientist behind some of science fiction's favorite ideas, most famously the Dyson Sphere (an artificial habitat completely surrounding a star).

Politically, he supports international cooperation over nationalism, supports nuclear disarmament, and is a self-described environmentalist who believes fossil fuels are the driving force behind global warming. He resembles the stereotype of the conservative in only two ways: he is Christian (non-denominational), and he calls environmentalism a secular religion.


Clearly it's not just political partisanship or uninformed rhetoric that calls environmentalism a religion.

[CanadianJeff]

accually there have been a few conservative party leaders in Canada who have been given awards for enviromental efforts.

Brian Mulroney for example was given the award of greenest prime minister for his enviromental efforts.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... hub=Canada

The big thing that gets me over this whole issue is the notion and often the denial that Enviromentalism is a "left-wing" cause. It's quite often that I hear a radio talk show host or political blog make this assertion without any real evidence.

I would turn around and accually charge on top of the conversative green record that the very idea of enviromental conservation is far more inbeded in the beliefs and political culture of the conservative politician.

What do you all think? Is religious enviromentalism for imbeded in one ideology of political thinking or is it more of a mainstream idea that has radical beliefs on both ends up the specturm?

[Zipperfish]

Secular: "of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred"

religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

A secular religion is, by definition, contradictory, oppositional.

Gaians are religious, at least according to the above definition. And some people are overly dogmatic about environmental issues, but I'm not sure that's teh same as religious. And the anthropomorphication of nature (cute, cuddly, baby seals) does bear the whiff of idolatry, I suppose.

So I must agree wiht Mr. Dyson to a degree. But I also recognize the danger of generalizing his argument to environmentalists in general. Much of the concern for the environment--and I flatter myself to be in this category--do so because of a rational response to the impacts of humans on the environment. The environment is a prenecessity for human life on this planet--plants, animlas, atmosphere and water working together as a complex system. Impacts to the environment affect human beings. Extracting work (in the thermodynamic sense) from the environment necessarily degrades it. Therefore we should optimize our degradation of the environment.

Religions are supernatural, therefore, by definition, at their root, irrational. Faith does not require reason. To me he danger of designating environmentalism, in toto, as a religion is that you can then ascribe the actions of environmentalists as irrational. To be fair, I don't think this is what Dr. Dyson is trying to do--I don't think he's tarring all environemtnalists by virtue of the fact that he refers to himself as one!

If Dyson believes that global warming is real and anthropogenic, that's news to me. Last I read, he believes that some parts of the planet are warming, but that has not been demonstratively shown to be global. He readily admits that CO2 could well be a cause, but he isn't jumping to any conclusions.

He says here (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html) that if global warming is real, we should consider a technological solution, since in the interim there are better things to spend are money on, such (he offeres) more levees around New Orleans. Couldn't agree with him more there.

[Pseudonym]

I'm afraid I have to disagree with your dichotomy of faith and reason. Kierkegaard did a very bad thing when he brought this idea into the the realm of modern philosophy. Faith is a form of trust, and can be rational when one has a basis on which to form that trust. Unless, of course, you want to contend that all trust is, by its nature (is the Latin phrase "ipso facto")?, irrational, in which case you have just put yourself on the philosophical path that leads to nihilism.

I do, however, agree that environmentalism cannot be truly "religious" for the reasons you stated above. It answers no true questions of origin, meaning, or existence.

So, in conclusion, I would have to say I disagree with Mr. Dyson, since most religions are significantly more rational than extreme environmentalism.

[Zipperfish]

Pseudonym wrote:

I'm afraid I have to disagree with your dichotomy of faith and reason. Kierkegaard did a very bad thing when he brought this idea into the the realm of modern philosophy. Faith is a form of trust, and can be rational when one has a basis on which to form that trust. Unless, of course, you want to contend that all trust is, by its nature (is the Latin phrase "ipso facto")?, irrational, in which case you have just put yourself on the philosophical path that leads to nihilism.

I do, however, agree that environmentalism cannot be truly "religious" for the reasons you stated above. It answers no true questions of origin, meaning, or existence.

So, in conclusion, I would have to say I disagree with Mr. Dyson, since most religions are significantly more rational than extreme environmentalism.

Agreed, wiht the cidicil that most environemtnalists are significantly more rational than extreme "religionists."

I'll have to read on this Kierkegaard business.

[faile]

Of course, if environmentalism really *was* a religion, a politician could now be hauled before an HRC (Based on the SCOC decision on jurisdiction in the Pankiw case) for suggesting people who believe the climate hysteria are idiots.

It's like a Suzuki wet dream. He's probably trying to figure out how to establish the religion now.

[Thanos]

Maybe "religion" isn't the correct word to use. I suggest that "doomsday cult" would be more appropriate considering that what the environmental hierarchy is peddling is pure fin du ciecle hysteria. Religions scare and manipulate people by threatening damnation for their immortal souls. Cults operate somewhat differently, in that they first terrify their followers, secondly they enrage them into a berserker state of irrational non-thinking, and then manipulate them to pursue and attain a more immdediate and earthly goal, examples of which would be banning abortion, killing off all the homosexuals they can catch, exterminating Jews and, in the case of environmentalism extremism, basically trying to destroy the economic underpinnings of our entire society by an endless repetition of "Stop, or we're all gonna die!!!" in regards to climate change. Suzuki for example, when he goes into elementary schools and terrifies little kids with talk of the end of the world and encouraging them to pressure their parents towards working to imprisoning political and industrial dissidents who won't drink the global warming Kool-Aid, is really just engaging in a cultist tactic that's been around since humans learned to rub two sticks together to make fire. Separate the children from their parents, either physically or mentally, by brainwashing them into radical and irrational ideology is a simple and effective device to ensure that the cult survives. Every cult leader, from primitive shamen, to Christian monks, to Muslim madrassa clerics, to more modern examples like David Koresh, and now through to the likes of Suzuki, knows that when you get control of the kids you get control of the future.

[Pseudonym]

Zipperfish wrote:

I'll have to read on this Kierkegaard business.

Its actually very interesting if you get into classical philosophy. I don't claim to have a strong background in the area, but I am fairly certain he established the aforesaid dichotomy which led to the creation of the philosophy of existentialism. Kierkegaard, however, would likely be shocked and outraged at the perspective of modern existentialism.

[Zipperfish]

Thanos wrote:

Maybe "religion" isn't the correct word to use. I suggest that "doomsday cult" would be more appropriate considering that what the environmental hierarchy is peddling is pure fin du ciecle hysteria. Religions scare and manipulate people by threatening damnation for their immortal souls. Cults operate somewhat differently, in that they first terrify their followers, secondly they enrage them into a berserker state of irrational non-thinking, and then manipulate them to pursue and attain a more immdediate and earthly goal, examples of which would be banning abortion, killing off all the homosexuals they can catch, exterminating Jews and, in the case of environmentalism extremism, basically trying to destroy the economic underpinnings of our entire society by an endless repetition of "Stop, or we're all gonna die!!!" in regards to climate change. Suzuki for example, when he goes into elementary schools and terrifies little kids with talk of the end of the world and encouraging them to pressure their parents towards working to imprisoning political and industrial dissidents who won't drink the global warming Kool-Aid, is really just engaging in a cultist tactic that's been around since humans learned to rub two sticks together to make fire. Separate the children from their parents, either physically or mentally, by brainwashing them into radical and irrational ideology is a simple and effective device to ensure that the cult survives. Every cult leader, from primitive shamen, to Christian monks, to Muslim madrassa clerics, to more modern examples like David Koresh, and now through to the likes of Suzuki, knows that when you get control of the kids you get control of the future.

I don't think classroom seminars quite amount to "control of the kids." Nor I do think that Suzuki is a cult leader. I wouldn't compare him to David Koresh. I don't think he's ever holed up in a compound, for example. I don't think he "terroizes" kids. And really, such spurious comparisons damage your own argument more than anything.

[sandorski]

Environmentalism is more Common Sense than Religion. You just can't keep crapping over everything and expect things to remain clean or healthy. Our understanding of Pollution has evolved from not even being considered, to understanding that sewage running down the street is bad, to understanding that Smog is bad, to understanding that exposure to certain substances/chemicals is bad, etc etc. GHG and other issues are real issues that need addressed and as our knowledge continues to expand we'll find even more things that need dealt with.

[Psudo]

Zipperfish wrote:

Secular: "of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred"

religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

A secular religion is, by definition, contradictory, oppositional.

Where did you get these definitions?

Merriam-Webster includes some other definitions for religion, including "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" and "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices". Both of these could be used in conjunction with the term secular, as defined as "of or relating to the worldly or temporal". They also point out the existence of the term "secular priest" to mean a priest not associated with any particular religious order or congregation. There is no obvious contradiction between the dictionary definitions for 'religious' and 'secular', and even an example of a blurring of the lines between them.

There are parts of the environmentalist movement that hold to specific environmentalist arguments with ardor and faith. There is included within the scope of environmentalism a system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices regarding what is and is not environmentally friendly. In this sense, there is faith at work with a character similar to that of the faith of Buddhists or Christians or whomever.

Zipperfish wrote:

But I also recognize the danger of generalizing his argument to environmentalists in general. Much of the concern for the environment--and I flatter myself to be in this category--do so because of a rational response to the impacts of humans on the environment.

I don't dispute that rationality is invovled, nor do I see any way in which Dr. Dyson does. Faith and rationality are not mutually exclusive; indeed, in my own experience I find them to each improve upon the other.

It seems to me that Dyson calls environmentalism a religion out of respect for both environmentalism and religion.

Perhaps the term "religion" is only offensive to those who see religion as the irrational refuge of the weak mind, or as another system for a few elites to control the masses, or some similar travesty against reason. For an adherent of any religion, calling environmentalism a religion means "a set of beliefs you have the right to retain but not the right to force upon me." As long as we have standing arguments against it, it is not empirical fact. It must be debated democratically and established without the use of force. It is an argument against claims that the debate is closed, or that critics of the foremost theory are comparable to holocaust deniers, or other rejections of our equal right to our views.

We then follow it up with arguments not intended to end all discussion, but to demonstrate that discussion continues on an open topic. Once this is acknowledged, it is no longer necessary to point out the exaggerated trust and ideological blindness occasionally accompanying global warming alarmism.

Zipperfish wrote:

Religions are supernatural, therefore, by definition, at their root, irrational. Faith does not require reason. To me he danger of designating environmentalism, in toto, as a religion is that you can then ascribe the actions of environmentalists as irrational.

I dispute this. Religions are usually accompanied by supernatural myths, yes, but that is not the whole nature of religion. Even science is subject to wild speculations at the far edges of theoretical physics. But some strong part of the value of religion derives from the behaviors and thinking prescribed by religion; the morality of temperance and treating others as neighbors, or the health benefits of avoiding red meats in favor of grains or fruit.

At it's core, religion is about finding truth that does not offer itself to empirical analysis. Truths about the self, about the ideal forms and purposes of things; religion is philosophy for the layman. In that sense, it is only aided by rationality.

Zipperfish wrote:

If Dyson believes that global warming is real and anthropogenic, that's news to me. Last I read, he believes that some parts of the planet are warming, but that has not been demonstratively shown to be global. He readily admits that CO2 could well be a cause, but he isn't jumping to any conclusions.

Dyson wrote:

I will discuss the global warming problem in detail because it is interesting, even though its importance is exaggerated. One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas.

I think this quote, from your same link, provides his view nicely: he believes the world is getting warmer, that burning fossil fuels is contributing strongly to the trend, and that "it's importance is exaggerated".

It's quite close to my views, actually. I don't even think you and I disagree much about the state of the Earth, Zipperfish, but rather what to do about it.

[Psudo]

sandorski wrote:

Environmentalism is more Common Sense than Religion. You just can't keep crapping over everything and expect things to remain clean or healthy

Environmentalism contains a lot of good sense and reason. So does religion. But faith exists in both as well. When imperfect conservation becomes a public shame, environmentalism has declared sin. When Al Gore manages to increase his home's energy consumption after a green remodel, it is a cleansing ritual (one that seems silly to those outside the movement). When "global warming deniers" are declared irrelevant and the debate declare over, it is dogma.

Sure, the central premise is still valid: don't poo on everything and expect it to stay clean. But the political means go beyond the central premise to ignore or even contradict good sense.

And I'm generally fine with that. I have no problem with religions, even ones that are not my own. The problem arises when the intent is to enforce a religion that is not mine upon me. Please, try to clean up environmental messes. I'll help you. There's a lake in Butte, Montana where we could start. But don't pass laws punishing me for my car, my thermostat, my daily existence in an attempt to prevent an environmental Armageddon I believe is mythical. That goes beyond religion into theocracy.

Like any religion, extremism twists it into something else.

[sandorski]

Psudo wrote:

sandorski wrote:

Environmentalism is more Common Sense than Religion. You just can't keep crapping over everything and expect things to remain clean or healthy

Environmentalism contains a lot of good sense and reason. So does religion. But faith exists in both as well. When imperfect conservation becomes a public shame, environmentalism has declared sin. When Al Gore manages to increase his home's energy consumption after a green remodel, it is a cleansing ritual (one that seems silly to those outside the movement). When "global warming deniers" are declared irrelevant and the debate declare over, it is dogma.

Sure, the central premise is still valid: don't poo on everything and expect it to stay clean. But the political means go beyond the central premise to ignore or even contradict good sense.

And I'm generally fine with that. I have no problem with religions, even ones that are not my own. The problem arises when the intent is to enforce a religion that is not mine upon me. Please, try to clean up environmental messes. I'll help you. There's a lake in Butte, Montana where we could start. But don't pass laws punishing me for my car, my thermostat, my daily existence in an attempt to prevent an environmental Armageddon I believe is mythical. That goes beyond religion into theocracy.

Like any religion, extremism twists it into something else.

Please, Gore's Energy useage is a non-issue. His home includes a Studio where he works from Home with.

[Zipperfish]

Psudo wrote:

It's quite close to my views, actually. I don't even think you and I disagree much about the state of the Earth, Zipperfish, but rather what to do about it.

Quite true--and I have to thank you for pointing me to Dyson's views on the issue, since they are similar to my own. Cheers!

[faile]

sandorski wrote:

Gore's Energy useage is a non-issue. His home includes a Studio where he works from Home with.

See, it's not a religion yet. The extraneous capitalization isn't quite where it needs to be yet. When we start seeing this:

Quote:

Gore's energy usage is a non-issue. His home includes a studio where He works from home with.

THEN it's a religion.

*Although Energy, Pollution, and Smog are a bit worrisome. Common Sense not so much.