Funny.
As someone who needed to take 4 humanities courses in university and decided to take them ALL in "Religion & Ecology" courses, I find this interesting. I also find this interesting given my love of "Hard Times" by Charles Dickens.
"This is all stuff fundamental religions can't do. And if environmentalism is a kind of fundamentalist religion, then that's not a good way to manage the environment. We need a scientific approach. Not a religious approach."
One small problem with that. There are 6 billion people in the world, not all of whom hold doctorate degrees in environmental chemistry (I also took environmental chemistry in university as a spare science credit). But there wouldn't be such a thing as environmental chemistry if there was a groundswell of lay people demanding that experts look at why their water is making their kids sick.
Everyone remembers the movie "Contact" by Carl Sagan? Carl was a scientist and an environmentalist, but he firmly believed that science could not overcome environmental problems. Cold, hard, scientific facts don't make people start to separate their recycleables and take public transit to work. So, towards the end of his life, ol' athiestic Carl started attending multi-religious functions trying to convert the existing religions to pick up on the environmental movement.
"Contact" was his reflections on how science and religion TOGETHER are the only means of motivating a whole human race to do something for the well-being of all mankind. Environmentalism NEEDS to be a religion or it is doomed. If you don't believe me, read "Hard Times" by Dickens.
|