YASRD: Yet Another Science and Religion Discussion
In the other thread riser started I was about to discuss the very, very ironic similarities between science and religion, but I lost my internet connection and a mobo went BOOM! Then I read this:
Quote :
"Environmentalism as Religion"
by Michael Crichton
Commonwealth Club
San Francisco, CA
September 15, 2003
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. 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.
Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. 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.
There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.
Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don't want to talk anybody out of them, as I don't want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don't want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can't talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.
So that was environmentalism and not science, generically. . . .
But, for me, I see no difference in the amount of faith a Christian must possess to fuel his religious conviction any more the faith a scientist must possess to fuel his convictions (i.e. the hypothetical side, not the postulate side).
But even the common everyday person must accept scientific postulates on faith? Most science knowledge I have is what someone told me. I've never proven any of it, myself, but I accept it anyway . . . does this make sense?
But even the common everyday person must accept scientific postulates on faith? Most science knowledge I have is what someone told me. I've never proven any of it, myself, but I accept it anyway . . . does this make sense?
You have a point. But the difference is that you can prove most science if you were so inclined. The same cannot be said for the basic principles of most religions.
Faith and evidence do have a link though. Most of us have faith in science because we've seen its basic principles proven. Gravity, matter, etc... these things have been proven to exist. God, on the other hand, has never been proven to exist. But of course, that depends on the liberal definition of God. Certainly, mainstream religions such as Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism have never proven their deities exist. Hell, there's still question as to whether or not Jesus existed. (I personally think he did, but it's never been proven.)
By the way, what the fcuk is a "urban atheist"? I personally believe environmentalism is both a lifestyle. We already exist (to a great degree) in harmony with our world. Sure we're doing things to fcuk it up, but for the most part the food chain has been unbroken in all ecosystems. I would hardly call Environmentalism a religion.
It's supposed to mean that his theory is clearly crap.
Agreed. His argument is basically this: atheists are turning into environmentalists because it's impossible to surpress religion from the human psyche. While I'm probably more concerned for the environment than others, I certainly don't eat organic foods or worry about being "in balance with nature." I'm all for developing land and mowing down forests (so long as it's prudent). And I'm an atheist...
He takes a lot of liberties with the meaning of the term "environmentalism."
From wikipedia:
Quote :
Environmentalism is a concern for the preservation, restoration, or improvement of the natural environment, such as the conservation of natural resources, prevention of pollution, and certain land use actions. It often supports the struggles of indigenous peoples against the spread of globalisation to their way of life, which is seen as less harmful to the environment.
Merriam-Webster:
Quote :
Main Entry: en·vi·ron·men·tal·ism
Pronunciation: \-ˌvī-rə(n)-ˈmen-tə-ˌli-zəm, -ˌvī(-ə )r(n)-\
Function: noun
Date: circa 1922
1: a theory that views environment rather than heredity as the important factor in the development and especially the cultural and intellectual development of an individual or group
2: advocacy of the preservation, restoration, or improvement of the natural environment; especially : the movement to control pollution
Environmentalism is a way of life, not a religion. By his logic, pollution is a religion.
He's trying to read into it too much. One wonders if he was intoxicated when he published this mess. I wonder if he even wrote it.
OK... you should have posted the entire article because he makes some very good points. Having read the whole thing here, I believe he's singling out the extreme environmentalist... the ones who DO turn the term in a deity or religion.
Here he makes some very good points that many people are unaware of:
(For the record Mr. Crichton, I have read these things)
Quote :
So I can tell you some facts. I know you haven't read any of what I am about to tell you in the newspaper, because newspapers literally don't report them. I can tell you that DDT is not a carcinogen and did not cause birds to die and should never have been banned. I can tell you that the people who banned it knew that it wasn't carcinogenic and banned it anyway. I can tell you that the DDT ban has caused the deaths of tens of millions of poor people, mostly children, whose deaths are directly attributable to a callous, technologically advanced western society that promoted the new cause of environmentalism by pushing a fantasy about a pesticide, and thus irrevocably harmed the third world. Banning DDT is one of the most disgraceful episodes in the twentieth century history of America. We knew better, and we did it anyway, and we let people around the world die and didn't give a damn.
I can tell you that second hand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and never was, and the EPA has always known it. I can tell you that the evidence for global warming is far weaker than its proponents would ever admit. I can tell you the percentage the US land area that is taken by urbanization, including cities and roads, is 5%. I can tell you that the Sahara desert is shrinking, and the total ice of Antarctica is increasing. I can tell you that a blue-ribbon panel in Science magazine concluded that there is no known technology that will enable us to halt the rise of carbon dioxide in the 21st century. Not wind, not solar, not even nuclear. The panel concluded a totally new technology-like nuclear fusion-was necessary, otherwise nothing could be done and in the meantime all efforts would be a waste of time. They said that when the UN IPCC reports stated alternative technologies existed that could control greenhouse gases, the UN was wrong.
But he's still taking a big leap by calling environmentalism a religion. Instead he needs to focus on the politics behind environmentalism, not the term itself. But I guess his real point is to point out the similarities between environmentalism and religion as they relate to politics. Still, there's more politics behind the issue than there is religion. Similarities are a coincidence in my opinion.
I apologise in advance: some of you will be offended.
I think one draws conclusions based on the fervour with which certain positions are defended-- that such fervour is akin to, indeed exactly as religious conviction. The most important line:
Quote :
These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.
So it follows that, though one might not think it so (in fact, for some of you, I know so!), one can reasonably say skepticism, atheism, agnostisism, nihilism, insert-your-favourite-ism are VERY like religions-- at the very least belief systems. Yes, I conceed these are surely not religions in the traditional sense, but one observes how these systems are adhered to and defended-- that the apologists of such systems MIGHT require as much faith for thier conclusions as a follower of a traditional religion might.
I'm speaking generically of my own experience, of course. What i find ironic is some people spending as much-- or even more-- effort into being non-religious, even anti-religious, as the people who claim to be religious in the first place. So, who then is more religious in that scenario?
The only argument I can fathom now is there's a difference between religious and religious conviction. . . Huh. A man who debates himself. I'll have to think about that.
What i find ironic is some people spending as much-- or even more-- effort into being non-religious, even anti-religious, as the people who claim to be religious in the first place.
This is a most excellent point. It's also why I shy away from anti-religious groups or "Atheist Associations." Some of them (if not most) lack just as much perspective as religious zealots. It is my opinion that our government sometimes lacks balance when it comes to religion. But this is more of a human problem than it is a establishment problem. Our constitution is written to seperate church and state. But how can our lawmakers truly be objective if 95% of them believe in some form of Christianity? That is the reason why our government fails when it comes to seperation. But to be fair, it'd be no different if 90% of our lawmakers were Atheists... they'd probably be out sponsoring bills to ban churches or the word "God." Either way, there's a serious lack of balance when it comes these issues. The religious right has far more clout than Atheists or Agnostics. This will eventually change though. Atheism is on the rise in the United States.
The best point Crichton made was keeping perspective with it comes to environmentalism. Either side of center always lacks perspective and objectivity.
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months. If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.