Hi Noumanalself.

I think you are absolutely correct in making the point that environmentalism is D2 and not M2 (to use the shorthand), and all the various implications therein.

But I still think the term "religion" is technically correct, since it is a belief system based on faith in the premise that Nature has inherent value apart from man. The fact that most people don't realize or buy into the whole "Gaia" thing doesn't change the essence of environmentalism. Whatever they call it, they have a groundless belief in a nonexistent thing that must be worshiped at the cost of man's existence.

If some green individual doesn't believe that Nature/Gaia/whatever has inherent value outside man's life, then properly speaking he is not an environmentalist, just a dupe of their propaganda.

The fact that they do not offer any afterlife or salvation does not make them a non-religion. To use a fictional example, the cult of Cthulhu offers no afterlife or anything of the sort, it only says that if you worship Cthulhu then he will eat you last, or somesuch.

Perhaps the term "quasi-religion" would be better? It is certainly more akin to the primitive tribal religions than Christianity, Islam, or other two-world systems.

What I very much like about classifying it as a religion is that it neatly sums up the point that environmentalism has nothing to do with science. It correctly identifies that the goal of the movement is *not* man's earthly prosperity. That is a point which very much needs to be made.

Your thoughts?

Inspector,

It may be useful to point out that environmental beliefs are not based on adequate evidence, when and if that is true, but it's not the case that any belief system that lacks adequate evidence is a form of religion. If I have a crazy conspiracy theory about 9/11, for instance, this doesn't make me a member of a 9/11 conspiracy religion.

You do raise a good point about whether or not an afterlife is essential to religion. Arguably it's not. So a religion worshipping Cthulhu would still count as one, I think, provided that Ctulhu is still a supernatural being, perhaps one who doles out rewards and punishments in this life. Of course, if I remember my Ctulhu lore correctly, in the Lovecraft fiction was supposed to be a real sea creature. Anyone making offerings to a real creature to avoid punishment wouldn't be part of a religion, but a member of a survival club, as it were.

But I think my point still stands about the definition of religion as involving supernatural agents. In the case of Christianity, it is this fact which explains why it has views about the afterlife, even if not all religions do.

I'm sure it's true that many environmental claims are not adequately supported by science, but I also think that some may be. If you're looking to try to separate the science from the non-science, I think the term you're looking for to do the work is "philosophy": some elements are environmentalism are motivated philosophically, and the philosophy is bad.

NS

Oh, one more point: unjustified belief in some kind of object of submission is also not necessarily a religion. Consider, for example, someone who believes in a non-existent dictator, and who guides his life accordingly. There would be a lot of differences between this and religion. E.g., it would easy to disabuse him of his belief by showing him that nothing happens when he breaks one of the dictator's rules.

Two points I'd like to focus on, momentarily.

While *most* people can be steered from accepting the ideas of environmentalism by simply showing them that the pseudo-scientific claims of environmentalists aren't true. But the proper environmentalists - as I said - are motivated by the idea that Nature has value outside and against man. This is a belief that has no basis in science and which cannot be removed with evidence.

Second, I have yet to see any believable claims from environmentalists. I believe you are incorrect to say that some of their claims are adequately supported by science. From what I can tell, none of them are.

Some good links on this:

Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here...

I could go on...

Did you have a specific claim of theirs which you think had merit, or were you just leaving a "maybe" out there? Either way, I would like to change your mind.

But to get back to your central point, to determine whether environmentalism is religion or merely quasi-religion, I think we need a rock-solid definition of what religion is, exactly. Does it require faith-based belief in the supernatural (i.e. that which cannot exist) or merely faith-based belief in that which does not exist (i.e. Nature or Gaia or Cthulhu)?

This is a good summary of this position, thanks NS for donig so. IIRC Diana Hsieh holds the same view, and there are some issues I have with it.

First, I completely agree with you about the *ultimate* difference between true religion and the various nihilisms of the Left, including the envirocult. In a hypothetical apocalyptic future where the West has fallen and people of the various belief systems attempt to start over in the ruins, I don't see the Left surviving at all; its ultimate root goal is a negative one, the destruction of the Enlightenment; once that raison d'etre is gone, they will be too.... at the hands of the various religious tribes, no doubt.

In the shorter range, however, in our current cultural milieu where the Enlightenment remnants have not yet been swept away, I don't think that this distinction means very much at all, compared to the IMO dominant moral and epistemological commonalities. Both sides have altruism as their ethic, each with their own concept of something "over" man to which he is to be sacrificed. Both are belief systems which pretend to reason but in fact repudiate it in favor of feelings. Both share an intrinsicist concept of value (interesting, that, seeing as subjectivism is the usual side of that false coin for the Left and its movements). Both even have remarkably similar concepts of innate or "original" sin, in the form of mankind's exclusion from the Garden of Eden; the difference is only where the "line of sin" is drawn, and the arrangement of details (the Christians put Eden on one side and man/the natural world on the other; the enviros define nature as Eden and exclude man and his works.) While the Christian Eden is explicitly supernatural, the enviros' conception of nature is a highly mystical, spiritualized version of it that is much more like a child's sort of awestruck animism than any sort of Enlightenment scientific view -- in fact, it's not unlike a child's image of God.

Ayn Rand herself touched on this issue when she pointed out that ultimately it didn't matter what it was to which the individual is to submit -- God, race, class, nation, society, whatever.

Your point about testable claims is interesting, but I have one problem with it -- why do we still have a Left at all, then, if past disasters discredit their movements? The Left has been about nothing but government as a solution to all problems; why are we still facing the threat of socialized medicine to this day, then? Communism failed. Big deal; rename it, change some nonessential details, and it'll be new all over again. America won't accept socialism like Europe did? Easy; co-opt American liberalism and call it by *that* name, then they'll buy it. That's fraud's been going on for over a century!

Again, I agree that environmentalism is not a religion, technically, in the same manner that a car is not a truck. But in the same manner that the latter difference is of little consequence except in specific circumstances (hauling things), environmentalism might as well BE a religion where the epistemological rubber meets the cultural road. The similarities between the two in this context (not to mention the *considerable* interbreeding that is happening) significantly outweigh the different metaphysics; it is due to their common hostility towards the nature of man. Moreover, if you think about it, modifying environmentalism to take on those missing elements required to turn it into a full religion really wouldn't change much about that movement, would it? IMO the only reason that environmentalism won't do it on its own is the cultural entrenchment of Christianity in America... too easy for the new religion to be painted as something like Scientology. It's far more likely that the two will interbreed down the road, creating some new monster.

Inspector,

You're right that environmental beliefs can be based on ideology rather than science, and that people who have them this way are harder to sway. But these are the hard core people who don't matter when we're talking about the appeal and threat of the movement. Just like there are still hard core Marxists in universities today, but nobody listens to them after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Regarding environmental science: I've written more about this in my "seedy underbelly" post, but while I'm sure that there's a lot of environmental science that is bad, I don't think it's defensible to say that none of it is good. There are simply too many scientists involved in the field, with too many different political and ideological motivations, and too much peer review to be able to say that. Even enviro-skeptics grant the truth of huge swaths of environmental science, and then simply dispute its interpretations and conclusions. And like I said in my earlier post, since I am not a scientist, I am not in a position to disenfranchise this much science from the armchair. I have to defer to experts. It's not objective to do otherwise.

You ask for a specific claim of theirs that has merit. Well there are probably many, but if I had to pick one, I'd say it's probably hard to object to the idea that the earth is warming. Maybe it's not caused by us, maybe it won't be so bad, etc., but even most of the semi-credible enviro-skeptics seem to acknowledge that there is some warming (Fred Singer comes to mind). I know there are a few dissenters and some anamolies, but the overwhelming body of experts and data seems to point in this direction.

Regarding the definition of religion, you ask, "Does it require faith-based belief in the supernatural (i.e. that which cannot exist) or merely faith-based belief in that which does not exist (i.e. Nature or Gaia or Cthulhu)?" First, I think that "faith-based" is not even a necessary condition of religion. You can have arguments for the existence of God, and as a result adopt religion without faith. You'll be mistaken, but if you think you've got a rational argument, that's not faith. Second, the essential for religion is not how religious beliefs are formed, but their content: a religion is a system of beliefs in a *supernatural* agent or agents. It's all about the supernatural. That's the main reason environmentalism isn't a religion.

Notice, by the way, that even if you could describe environmentalism's belief in the intrinsic value of nature as "mystical," this does not make it a religion, either. "Mysticism" is an epistemological doctrine, not a metaphysical one (remember how LP contrasts mysticism with skepticism, another epistemological doctrine). Mysticisism is the belief that there is a non-rational form of knowledge. This is why Ayn Rand called Marxists (who were definitely not supernaturalists) "mystics of muscle," because they believed in the efficacy of dialectical logic and expected crazy things to happen because of it. Environmentalists are just modern day mystics of muscle, not mystics of spirit. They are naturalists who believe strange things because they have intuitions about the value of nature. But that's not religion.

NS

Jim,

I don't disagree with much that you say. First, I think you're right that in the short-term both religion and environmentalism are pretty threatening, ideologically. But I do think it makes a difference to identify the difference in their long-term threats, because the way we deal with them today will determine whether or not they have staying power in the long-term.

You ask about why we still have the push for socialized medicine if Marxism is dead. Well it's easy to argue for socialized medicine without having to assume a Marxist worldview. You can just be a left-wing pragmatist liberal, of the John Rawls school, and many people are. Pragmatism is long-entrenced in America, and not something that would lose credibility just because the Soviets collapsed. In fact it's a default philosophy that people will adopt unless a new alternative to Marxism (like religion or Objectivism) fills the vacuum.

NS

NS,

If that definition of religion is accurate, then you are right about environmentalism not being a religion. I'll have to mull that over some but your case does seem plausible.

you wrote:

"while I'm sure that there's a lot of environmental science that is bad, I don't think it's defensible to say that none of it is good. There are simply too many scientists involved in the field, with too many different political and ideological motivations, and too much peer review to be able to say that."

I would have thought so, too, but after I examined all of their claims individually, I found lie after lie after lie.

"if I had to pick one, I'd say it's probably hard to object to the idea that the earth is warming."

Well, follow my first link ("GIGO warming"). I don't think there is merit to even those claims.

I understand that, as a layman, you don't have the expertise to examine matters and say for sure that they are all untrue. That's laudable. But if you *don't know* about all of their claims, then simply say that. Do *not* give them undue credit by saying that "some [claims] may be [valid]" or other such supportive comments.

Don't give the *filth* an *inch* of undeserved ground.

Hi NS,

I should make clear that when I refer to "the Left", I don't mean Marxism, I mean that entire politico-philosophical movement, from the Old Left to the modern-day hippies. It isn't just Marxism, but all their policies from one end of that range to the other, than are "tested" failures.

I would agree that pragmatism is a blinding factor that helps the Left evade its own record. Take a look here to get a sense of how utterly confounded mainstream minds are today, even in the face of the most naked and pure demonstration of the Left's end-of-road that history is likely to provide us.

Inspector,

You pointed to one of your links (the "GIGO" one) about how temperature might not be increasing because of heat island effects. Photos of a couple of ill-placed temperature stations is pretty anecdotal, though. According to this page, the readings at these problematic stations are compensated for statistically by many other sources of data:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/no-man-is-an-urban-heat-island/#more-454

Are the statistics cited by this page any better than the one you cite from Junkscience.com? I don't know. But I do know that most climate scientists agree with the first set of statistics. That group of scientists is probably suspect, ideologically. But so, I think, is Junkscience.com, especially in an article from 2004 (there's been a lot of new data since then, and Junkscience.com is such a poorly organized site that I don't know how to find their latest view).

So I'll keep with the idea that probably temperature is increasing. Scientists could be wrong about that, but it doesn't seem likely, not as likely as it is that they might be wrong about what causes temperature changes. Measuring increasing temperature is not something that requires a lot of inference. It's easy to get lots of data on it from around the world. Doing the mathematical averages is easy to do and check. So it's not the kind of thing that is easy to be mistaken about. I would be very surprised if the majority of scientists got this wrong, whereas it's less surprising if they're wrong about its cause, which requires making many more questionable assumptions and inferences.

Then look here

under "Another Good Counterattack against Global Warming Hysteria"

Quoting:

"The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago. [my bold]"

To take their claims seriously, as science, is a mistake. I detail this Here, among other places. I think once you see enough evidence for what this movement is about, you'll think so too. The falsehoods are not confined to a few cranks; they have compromised the whole movement - even the "legitimate" "scientists." Take your time, follow my links, read Gus Van Horn, The Charlotte Capitalist, Mike's Eyes, and other Objectivist bloggers who follow these things, the ARI's press releases, etc. Follow the facts.

I don't know if anyone is still checking comments on this thread, but I just came across this relevant link. This is disappointing:

http://www.cato.org/askourscholars/milloy/milloy-020115-2.html

Milloy isn't just dodging the bullet on evolution: this is closet creationism. For someone with Milloy's credentials and occupation, maintaining a stance like this requires dishonesty.

I would urge anyone reading this not to support or sanction Junkscience.com, and to regard with suspicion any data or controversial claim they produce.

Inspector,

I can't remember the last time ARI did any press releases on global warming science. Which is probably because they confine themselves to philosophy, not science.

NS

If you think the issue is a scientific one, and not a matter of philosophy, you are greatly mistaken.

As for the ARI, they have *plenty* to say about the issue. For example:

This
This
This
This
This
This
This
This
This
This
This
This
This

There are plenty of others. Does it matter that many of those are older? That does not make them less true. As I said, follow the links and read the blogs I mentioned. If you do not believe that the existential movement is in line with the philosophic ideas at root of that movement, and the nature of how fundamental ideas work doesn't convince you, then look inductively at the *evidence*.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc.

dgp,

Your link doesn't seem to show any "closet creationism."

Here is the quote from it:

"That said, some sort of evolutionary process seems most likely in my opinion. But there will probably always be enough uncertainty in any explanation of human evolution to give critics plenty of room for doubt."

That is closet creationism? Did you give the wrong link? I'm not saying I know he isn't one but I don't think that link constitutes proof that he is.

For the record, the "that said" which Milloy is referring to, is his previous two paragraphs:

"Explanations of human evolution are not likely to move beyond the stage of hypothesis or conjecture. There is no scientific way -- i.e., no experiment or other means of reliable study for explaining how humans developed. Without a valid scientific method for proving a hypothesis, no indisputable explanation can exist.

"The process of evolution can be scientifically demonstrated in some lower life forms, but this is a far cry from explaining how humans developed."

It does not matter that Milloy is personally ambivalent about evolution. That doesn't make him any less of a closet creationist. He's just evading the fact that he's in a closet.

The reason is that, with the exception of the ignorant, one is either a supporter of creationism or of evolution. One cannot be both, as Milloy is attempting to do. And he knows better.

Evolution is a scientific *principle* (or set of principles, to be precise) which applies to every living organism. There is no scientific alternative to evolution (nor is there any "uncertainty" about the fact of evolution as such). Any statement to the contrary is ignorant at best, and in Milloy's case, as I said, dishonest.

A man who devotes his whole career to the alleged defense of science does not make a statement like this, and merely forget to mention his stance on creationism.

He is clearly sympathetic to creationism, and that is why I called him a "closet creationist".

Ah, I see what you mean. I had interpreted "closet creationist" as more "crypto-creationist." I don't know that he is a closet creationist so much as perhaps a bad modern empiricist who is afraid to make a statement of certainty. At least that's how I would read those.

Hard to say, really. He's clearly trying to give deference to *something* bad, even though he does say that "some sort of evolutionary process seems most likely" in his opinion.

Perhaps he is simply confused about the term "evolution" and is making distinctions between Darwinian evolution, as opposed to the modern use of the term as incorporating Mendelian discoveries. If he is doing that, it is a rather odd thing to do. Almost everyone who says "evolution" these days means it in the way you did: as the general scientific principle.

I agree that would be "a rather odd thing to do". Especially since, 1) Milloy is virtually silent on the "junk science" that is intelligent design, 2) there is neither anything uncertain about the principle of evolution as incorporating Mendelian discoveries.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: