Found this interesting, and since a day doesn't go by where there isn't a topic on the environment here, I thought some might like to have a take on what Crichton says.
Michael Crichton on Environmentalism as a Religion
Wow. Crichton really stretches logic to the breaking point, and then proceeds to say that he is not really sure what we should do. Pretty strange for a guy that has the body of work he does and the number of creative ways he has looked at things.
I've heard communism referred to as a religion too. Maybe atheism in some forms should be thrown in there also.
I like Crichton's thoughts. My take is to keep it scientific and keep the emotional garbage out of it.
"We have to be ready to change course. We have to be ready to adapt. We have to say we are wrong and let's do it right. We have to do research. 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".
This isn't the first argument I heard about Environmentalism being a religion. The report in this link does a pretty good job at showing how environmentalism is much like a religion.
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.
By his logic, consumerism is every bit as much of a religion, and the whole environmental/anti-environmental conflict breaks down into two fundamentally conflicted religious movements.
I didn't have time to post this information previously. However, some of the key comments out of the argument from the above report that I linked to (it is an extremely long report) are:
"Real science does not talk about facts; it talks about observations which might turn out to be inaccurate or even irrelevant. The global warmers like to use the name science but...promote slogans such as 'The science is settled'...Science accepts various theories...Religion is different"
"Most religions seek to grow by means of proselytism. Science does not seek or need converts....Religions have...a growing cohort of believers that reinforces the beliefs of existing adherents and participating in the quest for converts helps assuage the inevitable doubts they might harbour."
"Demagorguery is also, therefore, a feature of religion. Some people have the ability to hold the masses in their thrall....One of the most notorious demagogues of the godless religion is Al Gore. His disregard for truth is exemplified by his characteristic and ubiquitous pose in front of a satellite photograph of hurricane Katrina. Even some of the most vehement climate “scientists” refrain from connecting that particular isolated and monstrously tragic event with global warming."
"Religions vary in their treatment of unbelievers, which ranges from disregard to slaughter. The new religion relies at present on verbal assault and character assassination...They call the infidels “deniers” – a cheap and quite despicable verbal reference to the Holocaust."
Apostates are universally even more reviled than infidels. They have turned their backs on the true faith...Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace, broke with the movement over its growing anti-human, anti-scientific tendencies and drift into extremism. He has, consequently, been subjected to a prolonged campaign of vilification, described as an eco-Judas, turncoat and traitor."
"Freedom of speech and publication is at the very heart of science. Even the most foolish of hypotheses is allowed to be offered for examination. In much of religion the opposite is true; challenging the established dogma is heresy...It is a curious repetition of history that those who advance the hypothesis that the sun is the controlling element in changes of climate are vilified...Yet the sun is clearly the driver for climate – if it stopped shining, the earth’s temperature would drop to near absolute zero."
"Confession and Salvation
the British Royal Society... now offers its fellows the opportunity to make public confession of their sins in the form of their “carbon footprint”. They even have a programme of “Carbon Control” directed at seven to fourteen year olds, urging them to take control of their carbon emissions. Young children now have nightmares about the burning planet, just as some of us once had nightmares about burning in hell unless we believed"
Just thought since it is such a long article a lot of people wouldn't bother reading it so as I said I posted some of the key points I noted while reading it.
Brignell does seem to be a bit of a loose cannon and disagrees with pretty well every bit of research ever conducted... except his own.
I never claimed he didn't have a bias. Obviously if he wrote this he has a bias, but he certainly isn't the only person who has a bias. I was indicating that he makes some good points and makes some good arguments as to why Environmentalism is treated more like a religion than a science.
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.
An obvious difference between environmentalism and religion is that environmentalist types generally hope (hell, some of them probably pray) that they are totally wrong.
I know I buy into this global warming stuff and I would like nothing better than to be proven wrong.
An obvious difference between environmentalism and religion is that environmentalist types generally hope (hell, some of them probably pray) that they are totally wrong.
I know I buy into this global warming stuff and I would like nothing better than to be proven wrong.
You make a good point. In religions in general the believers want to hope that they are right. The thing is in both cases people believe they are right and have faith in what they believe. It also seems, as one of the people who doesn't buy into the global warming stuff, that if I speak out against it people get very mad at me personally. I find this somewhat odd, especially considering, that these same people hope they are wrong and yet they don't like to hear of anyone else who does not buy into the global warming.
You make a good point. In religions in general the believers want to hope that they are right. The thing is in both cases people believe they are right and have faith in what they believe.
Yeah, but I'm sure you believe you are right and have faith in what you believe. Are your beliefs about the environment religious?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames
It also seems, as one of the people who doesn't buy into the global warming stuff, that if I speak out against it people get very mad at me personally.
True, I'm sure, but the following is also true:
It also seems, as one of the people who does buy into the global warming stuff, that if I speak out against it people get very mad at me personally.
The passion with which this argument was made to me was fervorous, but I always though that fervor was more economic than religious.
Yeah, but I'm sure you believe you are right and have faith in what you believe. Are your beliefs about the environment religious?
I can't say that my beliefs are really religious and that it really isn't based on faith that I know the sun heats the earth and if the sun were to burn out the earth would no longer receive heat. Are we polluting the planet? Sure, we all have trash but to help that I'm also not opposed to helping the environment as I do recycle, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos
True, I'm sure, but the following is also true:
It also seems, as one of the people who does buy into the global warming stuff, that if I speak out against it people get very mad at me personally.
The passion with which this argument was made to me was fervorous, but I always though that fervor was more economic than religious.
I see your point here. People can disagree over anything and these disagreements can become quite heated no matter what side you are on. This does not make a religion but is commonly part of people defending any beliefs that they have.
Its wierd... I don't feel like my concern for the well-being of the planet we live on is comparable to my believing that Jesus died for our sins 2000 years ago, was resurrected into heaven, and now 'sits' (what, is he lazy?) at the right hand of the LORD.
They just don't seem like the same 'leaps of faith' from where I'm sitting... the former seems just good common sense, the latter a wild flight of fancy, a story... are they the same type of belief? Is the same leap of faith required to believe in Environmentalism (well-being of the planet) as Christianity (rising from the dead, angelic hosts, immaculate conception, heaven/hell, etc.)? I'm not convinced.
Environmentalism as a Religion
