Critchon's definition of religion is way too broad. His definition would lend itself to pretty much anything being a religion. I was unaware that the environment fulfilled people life's and gave it a sense of meaning. I didn't think so...
I also thought that one key part of something being constituted as a religion is the belief in something supernatural, like a God? What is supernatural about environmentalism? Environmentalists look at the science, they don't have a blind faith in global warming. Obviously that science is debatable, but it is still there. I am going to make a generalization here and assume that the majority of religious people didn't get their beliefs in a God because of the science behind their religion.
I agree with Rouge, Critchon made a classic straw man argument. Although he acknowledges the need "to do things better" it's seems as though he is attacking a vacant target. Him calling environmentalism a religion is more than a little stretch in logic, I would say it's a giant one.
I am also curious as to whether or not saying things like this hurts the environmental cause. I don't think anyone actually thinks we should continue on course, most people agree that we should clean things up and explore alternate sources of energy. But when people like Critchon call the environmental cause a religion, it is meant as a insult, and puts the idea on the fringe. In my opinion calling something a religion (when it isn't) gives listeners the impression that their is only two choices, yes or no. No middle ground. If is trying to promote critical thinking when it comes to the environment he could have done a much better job.
|