Dr. Peikoff on Environmentalism vs Religion

[Betsy Speicher 0]

However, to combat environmentalism requires just as much abstract thought as does any philosophic system.

That is definitely true in terms of what we must do.

In what way do you regard [environmentalism] as "worse" because it is less abstract?

It is worse because the best we have to offer -- appeals to facts and logical argument -- are totally ineffective with someone whose views come from fear of existence and/or blind conformity to the opinions of others. There is no way to reason someone out of an error he didn't reason himself into.

[jdperren 0]

It is worse because the best we have to offer -- appeals to facts and logical argument -- are totally ineffective with someone whose views come from fear of existence and/or blind conformity to the opinions of others. There is no way to reason someone out of an error he didn't reason himself into.

Surely that is true of anyone who takes religion seriously as well. But, in any case, I think the point may be somewhat mixed and less than fully relevant.

Viropaganism is certainly worse in the sense that it is more primitive and has no positive guidance whatsoever, while the political movement (at the moment) is doing much more damage than organized religion.

I agree with Dr. Peikoff about the long term, however, in that organized religion of the sort represented by Christianity or Islam have much more appeal, more staying power and hence more potentially destructive capacity. They provide a more comprehensive set of guidelines for behavior, ones that can well incorporate environmentalist strictures ("We are stewards of God's earth.").

If abstract ideas have a heavy influence on history and culture, those of the more organized religions are the more potentially dangerous, in the long run.

That said, I think neither will win out.

Viropaganism, as a religion, has already seen its heyday (in the '70s-'90s) and it's pollitical popularity, as implemented in the movement called Environmentalism, will fade over the next 20-40 years as more and more people come to see -- as those posters on the article have -- the bogus quality of the science, the values, the hysteria, and other aspects of the phenomenon. Most people will not vote for suicide without something more substantial driving them than what viropaganism has to offer. Most of the political victories are acheived by a package deal that offers the need for clean air, water, a range of livable temperature, etc, combined with some guilt over living in a successful, technological society.

Organized religions such as Christianity (when taken seriously) and Islam do offer that more substantial set of ideas. And, as I said earlier, they attack at the very roots, reason and egoism, and that allows such things as viropaganism to flourish. It has the power to create conditions that make it all the harder to fight. Viropaganism is worse in that it is more primitive and foolish, but formal, traditional religions are more powerful and hence worse in the sense of having more destructive potential. Environmentalists attack values that are required for sustaining human life, but only in the most extreme cases do they ask you to take their assertions on faith. They make a case, often flawed and based on bogus values. They do not typically ask adherents to take what they say on faith.

But the organized religions too will likely fade as pro-reason views become more popular over the next generation or two. If, that is, we can all survive this transition period.

Jeff

[Matt 0]

But the organized religions too will likely fade as pro-reason views become more popular over the next generation or two. If, that is, we can all survive this transition period.

Jeff

I am curious on what you are basing this hopeful assertion?

The Renaissance was over 500 years ago, the founding of America 200, so what will accelerate Reason taking over in so near a future?

[Betsy Speicher 0]

But the organized religions too will likely fade as pro-reason views become more popular over the next generation or two. If, that is, we can all survive this transition period.

Jeff

I am curious on what you are basing this hopeful assertion?

The Renaissance was over 500 years ago, the founding of America 200, so what will accelerate Reason taking over in so near a future?

I don't mean to speak for Jeff but, since I agree with his conclusion, here's my answer.

What will accelerate reason taking over is .... (drum roll) ... the Objectivist Ethics.

The main hold religion has had on better, value-oriented, life-affirming men is the fact that religion has had a monopoly on morality. Man cannot live without a code of values. Now for the first time, thanks to Ayn Rand, there is a better code of values to choose.

The best way to accelerate the process is to get our ideas out to young people now choosing the ideas that will guide their lives. As to older people who have already chosen their values, some of them are consonant with ours and, while they may never become Objectivists, they may come to accept and respect Objectivism, and that is a good thing too.

[Carlos 0]

How could Environmentalism not be more of a threat than Religion? The banning of DDT has probably resulted in more deaths in the last 30 years than Religion could ever be blamed for over the total of Man's existence (Since DDT has been banned, there have been about an extra million deaths a year for the past 30 years due to Malaria).

I want to gently say that I think Dr. Peikoff focuses too much on the role of abstract philosophy in man's existence (Fundamentalist Christianity/Islam) and too little on the role of more concrete, less abstract movements and events (Environmentalism).

I disagree with you here. If there's anything that Atlas Shrugged demonstrated, it was the role of abstract philosophy in man's existence...

You claim that millions died because of DDT over 30 years. Well, man's life expectancy was less that 30 years for centuries because reason was subordinated to faith.

I agree that abstract philosophy plays an important role in the world--I just think that some people/Objectivists (possibly Dr.Peikoff) focus too heavily on abstract philosophical movements in the world, then deduce from that what they believe should be happening now and in the future, without taking a good enough look at what is actually happening in the world.

Case in point, the huge contraversy over whether America is on the brink of a Christian Theocracy: some people examine the abstract philosophical movements happening in America right now, then conclude with absolute certainty that we are about to be taken over by hordes of Christian Theocrats...yet if you just look at the history of America, the laws, the people that live here, statistics, etc., it is blatantly obvious that no such thing could happen, or is happening, here.

Yes, Religion has done some pretty bad things in the past; but in the last few hundred years, I honestly think that Religion has been a minor player in history. If you just look at the major tragedies of the 20th Century (wars, genocides, etc.), I think the vast majority of these were done by secular collectivists, not Religious Zealots (which is why I can't stand Richard Dawkins when he tries to to claim that Religion is the source of all problems on Earth).

If you study the Bible, I don't even think that the most sincere of Christians in America are really living the true, absolutely religious Christian lifestyle.

Even in the face of the rising threat of Islamofascists, I still honestly think that Religion is not, and has not, been a key player in history for some time. Yes Islam is a dangerous threat, but if you look at it in the context of everything America and the World has faced over the last 200 years, it really isn't that significant. Islamofasciscism is just an ugly weed that modern secular Nihilist philosophy has nurtured and allowed to grow.

[Arnold 0]

Yes, Religion has done some pretty bad things in the past; but in the last few hundred years, I honestly think that Religion has been a minor player in history. If you just look at the major tragedies of the 20th Century (wars, genocides, etc.), I think the vast majority of these were done by secular collectivists, not Religious Zealots (which is why I can't stand Richard Dawkins when he tries to to claim that Religion is the source of all problems on Earth).

I think one needs to clarify this set of conclusions. It is irrationality, the lack of respect for reason, that lies at the heart of the sufferings of mankind. Religion is not the sole source of irrationality, and neither is it's irrationality necessarily dangerous if kept out of the political sphere. However, religion is a huge shield behind which lack of reason is made 'respectable'. The day one can no longer say he 'has faith', and not be taken to task for it, is when religion is seen for what it is; a cover for irrationality. The altruistic moral code of religions, provides the foundation for irrationality, and therein lies it's danger. Even the secular thugs resort to it's calls of sacrifice.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

The altruistic moral code of religions, provides the foundation for irrationality, and therein lies it's danger. Even the secular thugs resort to it's calls of sacrifice.

The sacrifice of men found in all moralities other than Objectivism is due to the fact that they are not Objectivism. Man needs a code of values and, if that code is not based on the requirements of man's life, then the requirements of man's life will be sacrificed.

Men were not necessarily irrational to accept altruism in the past because, before Objectivism, they really had no alternative.

[jdperren 0]

But the organized religions too will likely fade as pro-reason views become more popular over the next generation or two. If, that is, we can all survive this transition period.

Jeff

I am curious on what you are basing this hopeful assertion?

The Renaissance was over 500 years ago, the founding of America 200, so what will accelerate Reason taking over in so near a future?

Matt,

That's a fair question. But that you ask it in that way tells me that my comments weren't worded carefully enough. Here are some clarifications and some of the reasons for my position.

By 'fade' I didn't mean 'fade into oblivion'. I should have said something like 'decline to a level of importance substantially less than the current one'. How much is 'substantial'?

Today there's a very hot debate about the role of religion in politics and I expect that will get resolved in favor of the separation of church and state. When that is achieved, the noise level will be much less substantial and religion will be a much more private affair, where it will be primarily the concern of those who suffer from it... as taking addictive drugs once was, for example.

Why is that likely to happen? I.e. why will it be decided 'in our favor'? Because the American people, on the whole, don't want to be told what to do by anybody, religious leaders included. For all their flaws, Americans are very far from timid sheep.

Additionally, I don't mean to suggest that 'Reason will take over in so near a future.'

By 'the next generation or two' I meant a time span of anywhere from 40-80 years, roughly speaking. Suppose someone is born today. It will take about 25 years for them to produce more offspring, on average. But most people have to reach about age 40 to have much impact on the world.

So the 'near future' is about within that time span.

Is this a reasonable projection?

Observe that we've already been through two significant social shifts in the past 40 years, one around the mid-60s and another in the mid-80s.

Mid-60s

Prior to about 1967, the average person was considerably different in outlook than what we saw for the following 20 years. While far from perfect, prior to that time his or her 'instincts' were to be concerned about right and wrong, to be moderately trustworthy and reliable. You could generally expect people to keep their word, and to be concerned about doing so.

During the 60s and 70s, amorality was the rule, not the exception. That hasn't faded completely by any means. But as I judge events, it has improved and I expect that to continue.

Mid-80s

A well-known 'shift to the right' took place politically in the U.S. during the mid-80s, of which Reagan was part sponsor, part lucky beneficiary.

But that political shift was wider, it was also a cultural shift. The causes were many but I think the two major forces were a resurgance of the Christians and also movements which grew out of the work of Rand and others similarly inclined. (I don't mean here just Peikoff, et al. I mean libertarians in general with a very wide definition of the term.)

Not that these two entirely dominated the field, far from it. But their influence was greater than it had been 20 years earlier.

These two major turning points were, of course, preceded and followed by, as well as accompanied by, many other events and trends.

On the basis of observing those cultural events and trends over the past 40 years, combined with what is going on today, I formed my views.

What are some of those trends and 'things going on today'?

I agree with Betsy that Objectivism is a significant factor, though I wouldn't agree that it is the only one. Objectivism is the most consistent pro-reason, pro-individualist, pro-freedom philosophy today (and hence the most powerful, long term). But it's not the only one. Many who would have substantial disagreements with Objectivism, including a few non-crazy Libertarians, more rational Christians, and others have an influence as well. Thomas Sowell is a good example that might fit in either camp, but there are many others.

Specifically with respect to the influence of Objectivism, I think we can observe over the past ten years many of of ARI's successes. The books in school program is one example and I expect it to have an impact over the next two generations. The infiltration of the universities is another; I read recently that something on the order of a dozen OAC graduates had entered PhD programs in major universities over the past few years.

If you look at other good influences on the currently almost entirely corrupt university system, you can find some. David Horowitz of FrontPage Magazine has an ongoing, very vocal (and partly successful) campaign to expose the bias and desire-to- inculcate-with-leftist propaganda. Horowitz is far from an Objectivist, but (as with many conservative Christians) he can have a good effect when his reasons for opposition are ones an Objectivist would agree with.

I could cite many other concretes.

With the influences available, combined with inexpensive and rapid communications, I can envision social change happening more rapidly the next generation or two than it has in the past. That trend has been going on for 10-20 years or longer and I expect it to continue in the future.

Why do I think the trend will be largely positive? Because it has been so over the past 30-40 years since reaching a low point and... drum roll... Objectivism and similar views really are having an impact. I think we, since about 2000, are in yet a third shift. Already 1999 seems somewhat distant. People are beginning to 'perk up' and pay attention to ideas. Some of the influences are good, many are bad. But I think the good will win out.

What gives me confidence, albeit far from certainty, that the influence of Rand and other pro-reason views will continue and increase? Because they're true. So, unless you believe that facts and logic have or will have a negligible effect on the majority of men and women, you have to conclude that it's likely things will get better in that respect.

And if you don't believe they can or will, then one has to wonder why Objectivism would be a value as a philosophical movement, as distinguished from being only a valuable individual philosophy.

I don't believe this short reply is fully adequate to answer your question, but these are some of my thoughts on the matter.

[ewv 0]

Regarding Leonard Peikoff's statement quoted at the top of this thread, what he calls the "global warming movement" is not one of a "kaleidoscope of absurd concrete-bound threats" and is not the "movement" at all, but rather one campaign orchestrated and promoted within the broader viro movement in concert with its other initiatives and cancerous growth towards a fundamental goal. To dismiss the threat of the viros in contrast to the "power of abstract ideas" as formulated by religion ignores the motivating ideas and world view behind the viro movement, and ignores the enormous resources the viros have to spread and implement their ideas and policies -- which are already entrenched in education, the media and government, and are continuing to spread. He seems to be unaware that this has already been happening for over 35 years and is still growing.

In a subsequent response to a question on whether he would make changes to The Ominous Parallels if it were coming out today LP answered, "Yes. Though I do cover religion, I would place more emphasis on it both in Weimar Germany and in recent America, along with its importance in the rise of dictatorship, even one that professes to be secular."

The original version of the book is the one endorsed by Ayn Rand, before he began to reduce everything to religion under his recent DIM hypothesis and to the exclusion of other false ideas and the means for spreading and implementing them. Leonard Peikoff once put a great deal of effort into tracing the influence of the evolution of sophisticated ideas in the history of western philosophy. One of the great main values of his book was to apply that in analyzing Weimer Germany and its parallels here.

As Paul pointed about above: "Why do you hold that environmentalism is less abstract [than religion]? It is a follow-on of the New Left, which comes from the Old Left, which comes from Marxism, which comes from Hegel and Kant. Religion is a primitive form of philosophy, whereas environmentalism is the lastest by-product of a long philosophic tradition."

In fact, environmentalism, originally known as "ecology" as it exploded out of the New Left and before, was explicitly formulated in Germany by an Hegelian biologist who even coined the term "ecology". It directly led to the rise of the Greens, which was a major influence in the Nazis. You cannot dismiss the terrible spread of the viros in all aspects of education and public policy today as a mere "kaleidoscope of absurd concrete-bound threats".

[Mercury 0]

I agree with Betsy that Objectivism is a significant factor, though I wouldn't agree that it is the only one. Objectivism is the most consistent pro-reason, pro-individualist, pro-freedom philosophy today (and hence the most powerful, long term). But it's not the only one. Many who would have substantial disagreements with Objectivism, including a few non-crazy Libertarians, more rational Christians, and others have an influence as well. Thomas Sowell is a good example that might fit in either camp, but there are many others.

Could you kindly name any one of these other "pro-reason, pro-individualist, pro-freedom philosoph[ies] today"? By your statement, I assume you mean a philosophy which has all these components in one place. Going by the thrust and force of your assertion, I wouldn't expect you to simply point out the pro-reason element in Aristotle, or the pro-individualist element in Christianity, or the pro-freedom stance of John Locke. I would expect you to name a philosophy which was pro-reason, pro-individualist, and pro-freedom.

As far as I can tell, Thomas Sowell is not, in philosophy or in economics, an individualist; he is a neo-classical economist of note. His economic views do not begin with man the individual, hence perhaps his inability to say anything vitally new in Economics. Please see Ayn Rand's essay What is Capitalism? where she points out the epistemological error of classical economists: they always start with the group and never the individual. I believe this is a dominant feature of Sowell's writing, especially outside economics.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

I agree with Betsy that Objectivism is a significant factor, though I wouldn't agree that it is the only one. Objectivism is the most consistent pro-reason, pro-individualist, pro-freedom philosophy today (and hence the most powerful, long term). But it's not the only one. Many who would have substantial disagreements with Objectivism, including a few non-crazy Libertarians, more rational Christians, and others have an influence as well. Thomas Sowell is a good example that might fit in either camp, but there are many others.

Could you kindly name any one of these other "pro-reason, pro-individualist, pro-freedom philosoph[ies] today"? By your statement, I assume you mean a philosophy which has all these components in one place. Going by the thrust and force of your assertion, I wouldn't expect you to simply point out the pro-reason element in Aristotle, or the pro-individualist element in Christianity, or the pro-freedom stance of John Locke. I would expect you to name a philosophy which was pro-reason, pro-individualist, and pro-freedom.

Ayn Rand did in her essay, "Don't Let It Go." She identified it as the American sense of life. Of course, it is an implicit philosophy, so we Objectivists have to get busy making it explicit.

[jdperren 0]

I agree with Betsy that Objectivism is a significant factor, though I wouldn't agree that it is the only one. Objectivism is the most consistent pro-reason, pro-individualist, pro-freedom philosophy today (and hence the most powerful, long term). But it's not the only one. Many who would have substantial disagreements with Objectivism, including a few non-crazy Libertarians, more rational Christians, and others have an influence as well. Thomas Sowell is a good example that might fit in either camp, but there are many others.

Could you kindly name any one of these other "pro-reason, pro-individualist, pro-freedom philosoph[ies] today"? By your statement, I assume you mean a philosophy which has all these components in one place. Going by the thrust and force of your assertion, I wouldn't expect you to simply point out the pro-reason element in Aristotle, or the pro-individualist element in Christianity, or the pro-freedom stance of John Locke. I would expect you to name a philosophy which was pro-reason, pro-individualist, and pro-freedom.

As far as I can tell, Thomas Sowell is not, in philosophy or in economics, an individualist; he is a neo-classical economist of note. His economic views do not begin with man the individual, hence perhaps his inability to say anything vitally new in Economics. Please see Ayn Rand's essay What is Capitalism? where she points out the epistemological error of classical economists: they always start with the group and never the individual. I believe this is a dominant feature of Sowell's writing, especially outside economics.

If after reading his columns and books you don't agree that Thomas Sowell is predominantly an advocate of reason, individualism, and freedom, I'm not sure what I could say to persuade you. Since he's not an Objectivist it would always be possible to trade quotes illustrating both sides of the disagreement. But I think the weight of evidence makes clear that he is. Here are a few samples:

http://www.phnet.fi/public/mamaa1/sowell.htm

"The demands of unbounded individualism need to be weighed in the light of inherent social constraints which can only change their form but cannot be eliminated without eliminating civilization."

[The wider context is available here: From Knowledge and Decisions:

http://books.google.com/books?id=4kqTMrEKW...E930pqWigL5HPW0]

"We should listen first and foremost to our own experience... We should stop looking for saviors... Society has not existed for thousands of years because it had a succession of saviors. It's existed because it has institutions and processes through which people can realize their own goals."

[Here he speaks against ideas such as the value of 'group identity']

http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1511

""Diversity" is not just a matter of demographics. It is also a matter of "identity" and identity politics. Sri Lanka was one of the most peaceful nations on earth before demagogues began hyping identity and demanding group preferences and quotas in the 1950s."

[sowell contra 'social engineering', i.e. implicitly advocating individualism]

http://www.bkmarcus.com/blog/2005/04/best-...ote-so-far.html

"Much of the social history of the Western world, over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what has worked with what sounded good. In area after area -- crime, education, housing, race relations -- the situation has gotten worse after the bright new theories were put into operation. The amazing thing is that this history of failure and disaster has neither discouraged the social engineers nor discredited them."

[Note in the following the absence any appeal to class or groups.]

http://freedomkeys.com/collectivism.htm

"Capitalism is not an "ism." It is closer to being the opposite of an "ism," because it is simply the freedom of ordinary people to make whatever economic transactions they can mutually agree to."

[Note the implicit adoption here of the view that he was the motor of his own success, and to an extent the creator of his own hurdles.]

http://www.lfb.com/index.php?stocknumber=TS8596

"Although marching to your own drummer has its down side, both personally and professionally," he says, "it also made me no stranger to controversy, decades before my controversies became public. Without already being prehardened against vilification, my research and writing on racial issues would not have been possible. . . . With all that I went through, it now seems in retrospect almost as if someone had decided that there should be a man with all the outward indications of disadvantage, who nevertheless had the key inner advantages needed to advance."

With all his writing opposing affirmative action, racism, and 'diversity' programs, it's hard to interpret his stance as anything other than pro-individualist, at least by implication.

Similar quotes could be provided, with more effort than I care to make just now, from Walter Williams, Larry Elder, and others with whom you're probably familiar.

----------------

But more generally, I'd assert that, although they are not always formal and organized enough to have a name, there are several current or recently past, prominent, and well-known intellectuals and mini-movements that can broadly be characterized as favoring reason, individualism, and freedom.

George Smith's views, while not in lock-step with Objectivism, certainly show him being in favor of reason, individualism, and freedom. Libertarianism in general, while deeply flawed as a political movement, advocates reason, individualism, and freedom.

(Yes, there are many who mistakenly support it on the basis of subjectivism, but many others who do not. To anticipate one possible objection, one might argue that if one's position contains contradictions, such as an advocacy of subjectivism, that person isn't really[/] in favor of reason, individualism, and freedom.

Discussing that would take us far afield, but the answer to the objection is essentially that one has to weigh the impact and degree of commitment to that subjectivism. A writer may say, for example, that there is no objective basis for ethical principles that are provable or apply to all men. But if he then goes right on and writes as if there are, then that stand has little bearing on the writer's basic views. It then just represents an inconsistency, and often a minor one.)

Hayek is another example. While not consistent, he does advocate reason, individualism, and freedom.

http://forum.quoteland.com/1/OpenTopic?a=t...mp;r=5441038321

"A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of the individual and cannot really know freedom."

I'll close this section with an example that may stir some on this board. There are those, and I would agree, that hold the view that David Kelley is 'not really' an Objectivist. But would you claim that he is not, in fact, an advocate of reason, individualism, and freedom?

----------------------

There are other, non-libertarian intellectuals who could serve as examples.

Brand Blanshard is another intellectual who, despite being undercut by adherence to a coherence theory of truth, and by being a Quaker, was an advocate of reason, individualism, and freedom. Though good quotes of his are hard to come by on the Internet, it's clear from a reading of Reason and Analysis and Reason and Goodness that his essential outlook was rational, individualistic, and pro-freedom. Here is just one quote that suggests so:

"[T[he most practical service that any philosopher can render" is to help to help prepare the way for "a popular trust in reason, a pride in its exercise, and a general demand that the issues between man and man, race and race, nation and nation, be settled in accordance with it." The Philosophy of Brand Blanshard, pg 400.

Henry Veatch was an Aristotelian who was in favor of reason, individualism, and freedom. Here is one essay that touches on these themes, but a much better sense is gained from his books. [see: Rational Man: A Modern Interpretation of Aristotelian Ethics http://www.amazon.com/Rational-Man-Modern-...1608&sr=1-2, and

Intentional Logic-A Logic Based On Philosophical Realism

http://www.amazon.com/Intentional-Logic-Lo...1608&sr=1-3]

So, while I wouldn't regard any of these intellectuals and their respective philosophies as being as consistent, correct, comprehensive, or clear as that of Ayn Rand, each has much in common with Objectivism, in particular a commitment to reason, individualism, and freedom more or less as she would define them.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

There are other, non-libertarian intellectuals who could serve as examples.

Brand Blanshard is another intellectual who, despite being undercut by adherence to a coherence theory of truth, and by being a Quaker, was an advocate of reason, individualism, and freedom. Though good quotes of his are hard to come by on the Internet, it's clear from a reading of Reason and Analysis and Reason and Goodness that his essential outlook was rational, individualistic, and pro-freedom. Here is just one quote that suggests so:

"[T]he most practical service that any philosopher can render" is to help to help prepare the way for "a popular trust in reason, a pride in its exercise, and a general demand that the issues between man and man, race and race, nation and nation, be settled in accordance with it." The Philosophy of Brand Blanshard, pg 400.

This is what Ayn Rand wrote in a letter to Prof. Blanshard (indicating they had an existing intellectual relationship):

March 4, 1965

Dear Professor Blanshard:

I am deeply grateful for the copy of Reason and Goodness which you sent me. I have been an admirer of your work for quite some time and I truly appreciate the privilege of receiving an autographed copy of your book.

I know that there are many issues in ethics on which we disagree, but it is always a pleasure to read your manner of approach to philosophical problems. I am reading Reason and Goodness with great interest, and I would like to communicate with you when I have finished studying it.

[Scott A. 0]

To dismiss the threat of the viros in contrast to the "power of abstract ideas" as formulated by religion ignores the motivating ideas and world view behind the viro movement, and ignores the enormous resources the viros have to spread and implement their ideas and policies -- which are already entrenched in education, the media and government, and are continuing to spread. He seems to be unaware that this has already been happening for over 35 years and is still growing.

I honestly don't think that Dr. Peikoff was dismissing the viro threat or ignoring the resources they have at their disposal. As I indicated in a previous post, I understand him to be saying that they will have negative effects, but will be relatively short-lived when considering a long-term period. It would be interesting to hear his perspective on how long he thinks the viro movement will have effects, what those will be, and so forth.

Also recall that his response is to a question that compared islamofascism and environmentalism in terms of threat. I understand his response to be an explanation not of a particular threat (e.g., environmentalism) but of it's cause, which he sees as religion (due to it's basic philosphical premises and history). So, what would be helpful to me from those who disagree with this idea is a distinction in terms of basic philosophy between religion and environmentalism. How do the viros fundamentally differ from the religionists?

As Paul pointed about above: "Why do you hold that environmentalism is less abstract [than religion]? It is a follow-on of the New Left, which comes from the Old Left, which comes from Marxism, which comes from Hegel and Kant. Religion is a primitive form of philosophy, whereas environmentalism is the lastest by-product of a long philosophic tradition."

Isn't the long philosophic tradition of environmentalism precisely religion? Wasn't it Kant who said he had to limit reason to make room for faith?

In fact, environmentalism, originally known as "ecology" as it exploded out of the New Left and before, was explicitly formulated in Germany by an Hegelian biologist who even coined the term "ecology". It directly led to the rise of the Greens, which was a major influence in the Nazis. You cannot dismiss the terrible spread of the viros in all aspects of education and public policy today as a mere "kaleidoscope of absurd concrete-bound threats".

Regarding the last sentence first, I wonder if this is more of a personal, offhand, yet still objective remark about environmentalism. For instance, if you were having a conversation with someone and that person asked what you thought of environmentalism, you might simply say, "it's an absurd bunch of nonsense," or, as he said it, "kaleidoscope of absurd..." I could be wrong on this, but this was an interview, which, although more formal than a conversation, is still extemporaneous and less exact. So, I'm not convinced this was meant as a dismissal.

In terms of the relationship of the greens to secular political parties or movements, I recall one of Ayn Rand's appearances on the Phil Donahue show in which he basically said that because the Communists were Atheists, she and they were singing the same tune. Her response was, from memory, that they actually held a materialistic mysticism "of their own." They believe that the body (since "they don't speak of the mind") belongs to the state, the larger whole, which, by implication, takes on a mystical form. The clip is on Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life. In any event, this seems consistent with the idea that mysticism and religion are the philosophical roots, however primitive, of particular movements such as environmentalism.

[Scott A. 0]

Just so there's no misunderstanding from my previous posts, I do see environmentalism as a real and, at least temporarily, entrenched threat. In fact, one of my personal cultural barometers is commercials, on both tv and radio. What I've noticed in the past month or two is the inclusion of statements such as, "it's a great way to be green," or some equivalent attached to using some product. In other words, it's not only education, news media, or entertainment that's pushing this nonsense, but now businesses, too. I expect those others to do it, but when businesses do it, I take it as significant. Of course, it's possible that they think they are being pragmatic, and they will change when it's no longer in vogue. But the mere fact that they think they have to do it now indicates that they see it as the "hot" or hip thing. And that's disturbing, on many levels.

This being said, I do see environmentalism as rooted in mysticism or relgion and that it's possible it dies out quicker than what would seem at present.

[PhilO 0]

A great deal of good, capable of combating so many bad ideas in the world, is going to happen once Ayn Rand's ideas can better take hold, and I'm sure that the proper application of modern technology (including movies) will accelerate that process. I can only hope that whoever ultimately owns the rights to the material is more interested in using technology developed after Gutenberg, and actively works to put Ayn Rand's ideas in the most accessible forms possible.

[jdperren 0]

So, what would be helpful to me from those who disagree with this idea is a distinction in terms of basic philosophy between religion and environmentalism. How do the viros fundamentally differ from the religionists?

As Paul pointed about above: "Why do you hold that environmentalism is less abstract [than religion]? It is a follow-on of the New Left, which comes from the Old Left, which comes from Marxism, which comes from Hegel and Kant. Religion is a primitive form of philosophy, whereas environmentalism is the lastest by-product of a long philosophic tradition."

Isn't the long philosophic tradition of environmentalism precisely religion? Wasn't it Kant who said he had to limit reason to make room for faith?

It depends on what you take as fundamental, and which fundamentals, but...

I wrote an article a few months back on that very question. I'm looking into the option of reprinting it here, if that's alright with Betsy.

Jeff

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Also recall that his response is to a question that compared islamofascism and environmentalism in terms of threat. I understand his response to be an explanation not of a particular threat (e.g., environmentalism) but of it's cause, which he sees as religion (due to it's basic philosophical premises and history). So, what would be helpful to me from those who disagree with this idea is a distinction in terms of basic philosophy between religion and environmentalism. How do the viros fundamentally differ from the religionists?

That depends on the particular religion. There are important distinctions between religions of great philosophical importance with significantly different existential consequences.

Some religions, particularly primitive ones, are based on observations of nature anthropomorphized and mythologized. When it is thundering, Zeus is throwing lightening bolts and there is a storm at sea because Poseidon is angry. Such religions don't offer much in the way of day to day guidance and usually just prescribe rituals to placate the gods. This category includes most shamanic and pagan religions.

More advanced primitive religions have complex rulebooks of "thou shalts" and "thous shalt nots" that cover most aspects of daily life supplemented by edicts issued by priests and other religious authorities. These would include Islam and pre-Hellenistic Judaism.

Religions following and affected by Greek Philosophy, including Christianity and post-Hellenistic Judaism, are more explicitly philosophical. Pre-Renaissance Christianity was primarily influenced by Platonism while Renaissance Christianity and post-Hellenistic Judaism (particularly after Maimonides) were more influenced by Aristotle. They all involve some respect for reason -- along with faith, of course -- and tend to be individualistic with respect to behavior, rewards, and punishments.

Post-Enlightenment Christians and Jews, particularly in America, have been so Aristotelianized and secularized that many, even among the observant, are deists or agnostics. Even among believers, most are what I call "apa-theists" because if asked, they say they believe in God but,when it comes to their everyday choices, they really don't care what God thinks.

That's quite a wide range of philosophical differences and how does environmentalism measure up?

I see it as a religion of the pre-philosophical shamanic nature-worshipping type. In terms of intellectual content, it is slightly below Islam. By objective ethical standards, I find it inexcusable. I can forgive primitive men who turned to nature-worship, in ignorance, when their sincere attempts to understand nature failed. Modern day environmentalists have no such excuse. They actively ignore and/or evade so much available evidence and knowledge, that they cannot plead ignorance.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

I wrote an article a few months back on that very question. I'm looking into the option of reprinting it here, if that's alright with Betsy.

I'd love to see it. Post it to the Essays forum.

[Scott A. 0]

That depends on the particular religion. There are important distinctions between religions of great philosophical importance with significantly different existential consequences.

Some religions, particularly primitive ones, are based on observations of nature anthropomorphized and mythologized. When it is thundering, Zeus is throwing lightening bolts and there is a storm at sea because Poseidon is angry. Such religions don't offer much in the way of day to day guidance and usually just prescribe rituals to placate the gods. This category includes most shamanic and pagan religions.

More advanced primitive religions have complex rulebooks of "thou shalts" and "thous shalt nots" that cover most aspects of daily life supplemented by edicts issued by priests and other religious authorities. These would include Islam and pre-Hellenistic Judaism.

Religions following and affected by Greek Philosophy, including Christianity and post-Hellenistic Judaism, are more explicitly philosophical. Pre-Renaissance Christianity was primarily influenced by Platonism while Renaissance Christianity and post-Hellenistic Judaism (particularly after Maimonides) were more influenced by Aristotle. They all involve some respect for reason -- along with faith, of course -- and tend to be individualistic with respect to behavior, rewards, and punishments.

Post-Enlightenment Christians and Jews, particularly in America, have been so Aristotelianized and secularized that many, even among the observant, are deists or agnostics. Even among believers, most are what I call "apa-theists" because if asked, they say they believe in God but,when it comes to their everyday choices, they really don't care what God thinks.

Thanks, Betsy. I want to make sure I understand what you wrote, so I'm going to summarize a bit. I expect you'll correct me if I get something wrong here.

I see your distinctions between various types of religions as addressing several issues. First, there is the explicitness and comprehensiveness of the philosophy. Using your examples, the range is from a less explicit, almost pre-philosophic, and anthropomorphized understanding of nature to an explicit and philosophically-based presentation of a given religion's system of ideas.

Next, there are the existential results of a particular religion's influence as determined by the explicit philosophical views held by each, e.g., Plato and pre-Renaissance vs. Aristotle and Renaissance. Along with this comes the pre- or pro-scribed behaviors one must practice (or not practice) so as to "live" the philosophy.

And this leads to another interesting aspect, which is the personal relationship one has to a given religion in terms of the significance it has in each person's life, as determined by the extent to which those ideas guide one's focus and actions and/or are used to understand events in one's life.

Is this a fair synopsis?

That's quite a wide range of philosophical differences and how does environmentalism measure up?

I see it as a religion of the pre-philosophical shamanic nature-worshipping type. In terms of intellectual content, it is slightly below Islam. By objective ethical standards, I find it inexcusable. I can forgive primitive men who turned to nature-worship, in ignorance, when their sincere attempts to understand nature failed. Modern day environmentalists have no such excuse. They actively ignore and/or evade so much available evidence and knowledge, that they cannot plead ignorance.

It seems like there are a lot of "thou shalts" and "shalt nots" associated with environmentalism. Does this not move them into a different category than the pre-philosophical types? I agree with everything else you said here.

My last question (in this post anyway!), is whether or not your points actually refute what Dr. Peikoff is saying. Again, my understanding of his argument is that religion is the deeper issue, with environmentalism being one of its outgrowths. In other words, religion is a broad concept, covering all the particular forms, philosophic influences, and levels of development you described. So, wouldn't it be correct to say that the deeper issue is religion as such rather than a particular form of it (with the understanding that some specific religions obviously lead to worse existential effects than others)?

Maybe Jeff's article will get into this more, but here's what strikes me as the basic formula of any religion, no matter how explicit or well-developed: 1) there is something "bigger than" and external to the individual, and it governs reality; 2) the individual is limited in terms of his ability, on his own, to understand it; and, therefore, 3) we must all work together for the "greater good," often (if not always) sacrificing ourselves in order to transcend our empty individual lives and connect to that larger force.

I don't know for sure, but it seems like Dr. Peikoff may be arguing that this basic formula is what needs to be defeated. Specific forms of it, such as environmentalism, will be harmful and should be defeated, but the long-term issue is the defeat of the basic formula that makes the specific forms possible. This is just my take on it, and I could be wrong.

[Paul's Here 0]

--------------

My last question (in this post anyway!), is whether or not your points actually refute what Dr. Peikoff is saying. Again, my understanding of his argument is that religion is the deeper issue, with environmentalism being one of its outgrowths. In other words, religion is a broad concept, covering all the particular forms, philosophic influences, and levels of development you described. So, wouldn't it be correct to say that the deeper issue is religion as such rather than a particular form of it (with the understanding that some specific religions obviously lead to worse existential effects than others)?

I think that a distinction must be made between religion and mysticism on one side and irrationalism and collectivism on the other. Environmentalism is not essentially a religion although it contains some elements from a religious methodology, such as nature worship among some adherents. But that is not what the current political quest of environmentalism is about. It is about using the government to control and affect the economy in ways that support collectivism, with a fascist bent. It is about restricting private property to the point of making it functionless for owners. It is about controlling industrial production and investment by force. Environmentalism is the latest (and, hopefully, the last) ditch effort of the Marxist to control the economy. Just as one could say that Marxism substituted society for god as the source of the good, one would not call Marxism a religious philosophy.

Maybe Jeff's article will get into this more, but here's what strikes me as the basic formula of any religion, no matter how explicit or well-developed: 1) there is something "bigger than" and external to the individual, and it governs reality; 2) the individual is limited in terms of his ability, on his own, to understand it; and, therefore, 3) we must all work together for the "greater good," often (if not always) sacrificing ourselves in order to transcend our empty individual lives and connect to that larger force.

I don't see that as the formula for religion. For religion, the "something 'bigger than' and external to the individual" must be supernatural, and the individual must have faith in the things told to him. Many major religions have texts (written by the supernatural being) that dictate the daily values and actions of individuals.

I don't know for sure, but it seems like Dr. Peikoff may be arguing that this basic formula is what needs to be defeated. Specific forms of it, such as environmentalism, will be harmful and should be defeated, but the long-term issue is the defeat of the basic formula that makes the specific forms possible. This is just my take on it, and I could be wrong.

While I agree with much of Dr. Peikoff's evaluation, the one main point of disagreement, in this thread, is the extent to which environmentalism is a threat. He says, "To compare ecology and religion in terms of the threat to our future is to fail to understand the power of abstract ideas. No political movement, however popular at the moment, can compete in the long run with a basic philosophy." Philosophy has essentially destroyed modern man's ability to think in abstract ideas, which is the reason that environmentalism is popular today from school children through corporate executives. Does this fact itself not demonstrate the power of abstract ideas. Religion has been around Western culture for over 2500 years and has not destroyed it (yet). If that is not "in the long run" I don't know what is. It is only Objectivism that can save our culture.

[Paul's Here 0]

I would like to add one more point to my analysis of Dr. Peikoff's statement, "To compare ecology and religion in terms of the threat to our future is to fail to understand the power of abstract ideas. No political movement, however popular at the moment, can compete in the long run with a basic philosophy."

In a brief 12-year period, Western civilization was almost destroyed by a political movement: Nazism. Environmentalism is as much a political end of a philosophic tradition as Nazism was (See The Ominous Parallels). In my opinion, short term political movements are the means by which long term basic philosophy is implemented, in a social context. For an interesting analysis of the "short term" destructiveness of environmentalism, see Dr. Reisman's article, The Arithmetic of Environmentalist Devastation.

Nazism was a catastrophe. Environmentalism has the potential to be an even greater catastrophe—a far greater catastrophe than Nazism: one that will result in the deaths of billions rather than millions. This is because it is the diametric opposite of economic liberalism on a global scale. In contrast to liberalism and its doctrine of the harmony of the rightly understood self-interests of all men, environmentalism alleges the most profound conflict of interests among people. It implies that there is a major economic benefit to be obtained through the death of billions of fellow human beings, that, indeed, the well-being and prosperity of the survivors depends on the extermination of those billions.

[Scott A. 0]

I think that a distinction must be made between religion and mysticism on one side and irrationalism and collectivism on the other. Environmentalism is not essentially a religion although it contains some elements from a religious methodology, such as nature worship among some adherents. But that is not what the current political quest of environmentalism is about. It is about using the government to control and affect the economy in ways that support collectivism, with a fascist bent. It is about restricting private property to the point of making it functionless for owners. It is about controlling industrial production and investment by force. Environmentalism is the latest (and, hopefully, the last) ditch effort of the Marxist to control the economy. Just as one could say that Marxism substituted society for god as the source of the good, one would not call Marxism a religious philosophy.

I agree with all your points about the specific aims of environmentalism in the political realm. And it may be true that it is not essentially a religion. However, some set of fundamental, philosophical premises form its foundation. I propose that they are the "formula" I offered, and that this is the essence of a religious philosophy. (I understand you disagree with that and will address your points below.) Also, in regard to not defining Marxism as a religious philosophy, I don't necessarily disagree. However, this is why I paraphrased Ayn Rand's response to Phil Donahue's argument that because the communists are Atheists, she and they share a common philosophical base. Again, she denied this and described the communist philosophy as a materialistic mysticism.

Now, it could be that the issue here is psychological. By that I mean that although communists did not base their ideas in God, they nevertheless held the collective, as embodied in "The State," as a type of deity. There is a whole psychological mindset tied up in that kind of worship, and I would suggest that this is the commonality that exists between them and those who believe in the supernatural. The State takes on the same psychological significance as God.

Maybe Jeff's article will get into this more, but here's what strikes me as the basic formula of any religion, no matter how explicit or well-developed: 1) there is something "bigger than" and external to the individual, and it governs reality; 2) the individual is limited in terms of his ability, on his own, to understand it; and, therefore, 3) we must all work together for the "greater good," often (if not always) sacrificing ourselves in order to transcend our empty individual lives and connect to that larger force.

I don't see that as the formula for religion. For religion, the "something 'bigger than' and external to the individual" must be supernatural, and the individual must have faith in the things told to him. Many major religions have texts (written by the supernatural being) that dictate the daily values and actions of individuals.

I don't think it has to be supernatural, for the reasons stated above. However, to be more specific, I think the issue here is how philosophical ideas play out psychologically. Although one person can be a secular collectivist and another a religious theocrat, both sets of ideas lead down a path to a very similar psychological mindset, with corresponding actions. Some will kill in the name of God, while others in the name of the environment. Individual psychology plays out in the particular application of ideas to one's life, but the universals lie in the core philosophic premises and principles that form the foundation of anyone's personal interests.

While I agree with much of Dr. Peikoff's evaluation, the one main point of disagreement, in this thread, is the extent to which environmentalism is a threat. He says, "To compare ecology and religion in terms of the threat to our future is to fail to understand the power of abstract ideas. No political movement, however popular at the moment, can compete in the long run with a basic philosophy." Philosophy has essentially destroyed modern man's ability to think in abstract ideas, which is the reason that environmentalism is popular today from school children through corporate executives. Does this fact itself not demonstrate the power of abstract ideas.

Because of your last sentence I'm confused as to whether or not you are agreeing with Dr. Peikoff here. I don't think you are, yet his point is precisely that abstract ideas are powerful. I think I'm missing something here.

Religion has been around Western culture for over 2500 years and has not destroyed it (yet). If that is not "in the long run" I don't know what is. It is only Objectivism that can save our culture.

I'm a novice when it comes to history, particularly the various philosophic influences over a given period. But my general understanding is that periods dominated by at least some support of reason have had corresponding, but short-lived, leaps forward for mankind when compared to periods of the rule of anti-reason and its related degradation or drudgery. I think the point is that although religion has never destroyed Western culture, it has never been destroyed either. And it has a way of taking over for extended periods to the detriment of virtually all.

To be clear, I'm not a doomsayer who thinks some kind of theocracy is imminent. However, Dr. Peikoff's point on this issue makes sense to me, pending some further argument to the contrary.

[Paul's Here 0]

-----------------

While I agree with much of Dr. Peikoff's evaluation, the one main point of disagreement, in this thread, is the extent to which environmentalism is a threat. He says, "To compare ecology and religion in terms of the threat to our future is to fail to understand the power of abstract ideas. No political movement, however popular at the moment, can compete in the long run with a basic philosophy." Philosophy has essentially destroyed modern man's ability to think in abstract ideas, which is the reason that environmentalism is popular today from school children through corporate executives. Does this fact itself not demonstrate the power of abstract ideas.

Because of your last sentence I'm confused as to whether or not you are agreeing with Dr. Peikoff here. I don't think you are, yet his point is precisely that abstract ideas are powerful. I think I'm missing something here.

-------

Dr. Peikoff seems to be saying that environmentalism is outside of the context of the application of abstract ideas, or at least outside the context of ideas on the scale of religion. He seems to regard it as an idea in which crackpots want people to sacrifice for worms, etc. If that were the case, then environmentalism would indeed be a short-lived, fairly impotent political campaign. But that is not the case. Environmentalism has captured the imagination of children all over the world, of politicians all over the world, of businessmen all over the world. Why? Because it continues the altruist/collectivist tradition of attacking freedom and capitalism.

I don't mean to imply that there aren't people who sacrifice for worms (literally), but that is not the political motivation, which is what is currently threatening us.

[Paul's Here 0]

---------------

To be clear, I'm not a doomsayer who thinks some kind of theocracy is imminent. However, Dr. Peikoff's point on this issue makes sense to me, pending some further argument to the contrary.

I'm not sure I understand you last sentence. Perhaps you could explain what is the point that Dr. Peikoff is making that makes sense to you. Is your point different than my point? The point that I am disagreeing with is his statement, "To compare ecology and religion in terms of the threat to our future is to fail to understand the power of abstract ideas. No political movement, however popular at the moment, can compete in the long run with a basic philosophy." I don't see anything in what you state that supports this statement.

Also, as far as religion not being wiped out by Western civilization, it would have been had the philosophers not rejected reason (see For the New Intellectual).