Dr. Peikoff on Environmentalism vs Religion

[Scott A. 0]

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.

Thanks for clarifying what you meant, Paul.

My question at this point is whether your interpretation of Dr. Peikoff's statements is based solely on the quotes that began this thread, or are there other things he has said (or written) that you can point me to which further validate your interpretation.

I ask because I really didn't take him (in the quotes in this thread) to be arguing that environmentalism is either outside the application of abstract ideas or simply a crackpot scheme to get people to sacrifice over nothing. In fact, I understand him to be saying that environmentalism is a particular manifestation of abstract ideas, that it is a threat, but the more important threat is the abstract ideas out of which it is born--in this case, religion. In other words, I didn't see him divorcing environmentalism from abstract ideas, but instead is describing their relationship and, on that basis, the reason one is more of a threat than the other (at least long-term). Maybe I'm misunderstanding him?

[jdperren 0]

Scott (or anyone who might be interested in the topic),

My article has been posted here:

Environmentalism and Christianity — Roots, Similarities and Differences

http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?showtopic=6412

Jeff

[Scott A. 0]

Scott (or anyone who might be interested in the topic),

My article has been posted here:

Environmentalism and Christianity — Roots, Similarities and Differences

http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?showtopic=6412

Thanks, Jeff. I look forward to reading it.

[Paul's Here 0]

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.

Thanks for clarifying what you meant, Paul.

My question at this point is whether your interpretation of Dr. Peikoff's statements is based solely on the quotes that began this thread, or are there other things he has said (or written) that you can point me to which further validate your interpretation.

I ask because I really didn't take him (in the quotes in this thread) to be arguing that environmentalism is either outside the application of abstract ideas or simply a crackpot scheme to get people to sacrifice over nothing. In fact, I understand him to be saying that environmentalism is a particular manifestation of abstract ideas, that it is a threat, but the more important threat is the abstract ideas out of which it is born--in this case, religion. In other words, I didn't see him divorcing environmentalism from abstract ideas, but instead is describing their relationship and, on that basis, the reason one is more of a threat than the other (at least long-term). Maybe I'm misunderstanding him?

Remember what the original question was? Is the global warming movement a worse threat than Islamic Fundamentalism. Dr. Peikoff chose to answer it from a broader perspective of environmentalism vs. religion.

I am referring to his comments in the original post of this thread, Post No. 1.

The global-warming movement is one offshoot of today’s mysticism and statism. As many have observed, it represents in essence the onetime pro-industrial Reds changing—with the same purpose, but to be achieved this time by different means—into the anti-industrial Greens. The global-warming call to statism will have harmful effects but, I think, the movement is going to be short-lived; too many people remember how recently we were terrorized by the prospect of an imminent, man-caused ice age, and before that by the doom of over-population, DDT, etc.

The danger to the West is not this kaleidoscope of absurd concrete-bound threats, but the philosophy which makes their common denominator stick. This is the very philosophy (unreason and self-sacrifice) which is the essence of religion.

I agree with his first two sentences, but in the last two sentences Dr. Peikoff clearly minimizes the threat that environmentalism represents when compared to the long term effects of religious doctrine. The "kaleidoscope of absurd concrete-bound threats" (imminent ice-age, overpopulation, DDT) is short lived because it is not related to a philosophy of unreason and self-sacrifice. That is how I interpret his last sentence. Is not the first sentence in the last paragraph contrasted with the second sentence of the last paragraph? Is he not claiming that unreason and self-sacrifice is the essence of religion but not environmentalism which is just a set of concrete bound threats? How is imminent ice-age, overpopulation, DDT, etc. any more concrete-bound than anti-abortion, anti- stem-cell research, or any of the other of the kaleidoscope of policies that the religionists support? Considering all of the religious-inspired laws of the early 20th century that have been repudiated by the Supreme Court and other legal means, as well as all of the election losses suffered by Republicans in 2006, why is not the religion-inspired evangelical movement considered a short-lived movement within the context of the philosophy of religion? Why is "the global-warming call to statism" short-lived when it has been around for close to 60 years and saturates our culture, and shows no signs of abatement?

Just to be clear, in case there is any misinterpretation of what I am saying. Religion is a threat to advocates of reason in a fundamental way. But those millions who died from malaria are just as dead had they been burned on a cross.

[RickWilmes 0]

Remember what the original question was? Is the global warming movement a worse threat than Islamic Fundamentalism. Dr. Peikoff chose to answer it from a broader perspective of environmentalism vs. religion.

Does anyone believe that the global warming movement is a worse threat than Islamic Fundamentalism? The global warming movement is just one species of the genus-environmentalism. Islamic Fundamentalism is just one species of the genus-religion. Can anyone identify a species from the environmentalism genus that is worse than a species from the religion genus? As it stands, religion is the bigger threat. Wipe out the genus and all the species within that genus are also wiped out. Fighting against environmentalism instead of fighting against religion is like fighting against Iraq instead of fighting againts Iran(or Saudi Arabia-for that mattter).

[Paul's Here 0]

Remember what the original question was? Is the global warming movement a worse threat than Islamic Fundamentalism. Dr. Peikoff chose to answer it from a broader perspective of environmentalism vs. religion.

Does anyone believe that the global warming movement is a worse threat than Islamic Fundamentalism? The global warming movement is just one species of the genus-environmentalism. Islamic Fundamentalism is just one species of the genus-religion. Can anyone identify a species from the environmentalism genus that is worse than a species from the religion genus? As it stands, religion is the bigger threat. Wipe out the genus and all the species within that genus are also wiped out. Fighting against environmentalism instead of fighting against religion is like fighting against Iraq instead of fighting againts Iran(or Saudi Arabia-for that mattter).

According to Dr. Peikoff's answer, both religion and environmentalism are equally dangerous in that both are based on mysticism: "The global-warming movement is one offshoot of today’s mysticism and statism." If that had been all he stated or if everything he stated was based upon that premise, then there would be no disagreement. If I were answering the question, I would have stated that Islamic fundamentalism is more of an international threat and global warming is more of a national threat to private property and liberty. But environmentalism was reduced to concrete-bound threats, where as the essence of religion was unreason and self-sacrifice. How many people worldwide have died this year because of religious ideology? Over 94 million people have died since 1972 because of ONE chemical that was banned. Not to mention the thousands of chemicals that have been banned, restricted and regulated resulting in higher costs and lower standards of living for everyone on the planet. If you read the link in my Post 47, you'd see that there are billions on the environmental sacrificial alter within the next 60 years.

And where has anyone argued about not fighting against religion, or only fighting environmentalism? All I have stated is, right now, environmentalism is a more immediate and greater political threat than any particular religious doctrine.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Fighting against environmentalism instead of fighting against religion is like fighting against Iraq instead of fighting againts Iran(or Saudi Arabia-for that mattter).

Yet all of the above are "fighting against" and therefore reactive and defensive. When it comes to cultural activism, we should go on the offensive and be proactive by promoting Objectivism and reason across the board.

[Scott A. 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?

Sorry for the delay in responding, Paul. I left for a trip Friday and just got back tonight. For the same reason, my responese will probably be brief, as I need to unwind.

Regarding your quote above, as I re-read our discussion, I think we actually agree on everything but the point you make below and in a subsequent post. In fact, it will be better to respond to that particular post, so I'll do that now.

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.

[Scott A. 0]

The global-warming movement is one offshoot of today’s mysticism and statism. As many have observed, it represents in essence the onetime pro-industrial Reds changing—with the same purpose, but to be achieved this time by different means—into the anti-industrial Greens. The global-warming call to statism will have harmful effects but, I think, the movement is going to be short-lived; too many people remember how recently we were terrorized by the prospect of an imminent, man-caused ice age, and before that by the doom of over-population, DDT, etc.

The danger to the West is not this kaleidoscope of absurd concrete-bound threats, but the philosophy which makes their common denominator stick. This is the very philosophy (unreason and self-sacrifice) which is the essence of religion.

I agree with his first two sentences, but in the last two sentences Dr. Peikoff clearly minimizes the threat that environmentalism represents when compared to the long term effects of religious doctrine. The "kaleidoscope of absurd concrete-bound threats" (imminent ice-age, overpopulation, DDT) is short lived because it is not related to a philosophy of unreason and self-sacrifice. That is how I interpret his last sentence.

Yes, I think this is what we are interpreting differently. My understanding, especially based on the first two sentences of the first paragraph, is that he does see them related, with environmentalism being a particular concrete (and political) manifestation of religion's core premises. I take him to believe that political movements in general are far more short-lived than the fundamental philosophies on which they are based. However, as I said in an earlier post, I'm a novice in the area of philosophy and history, so I don't yet have the full knowledge to say whether this is true or not. What knowledge I do have leads me to agree.

Is not the first sentence in the last paragraph contrasted with the second sentence of the last paragraph? Is he not claiming that unreason and self-sacrifice is the essence of religion but not environmentalism which is just a set of concrete bound threats?

What makes me think it isn't a contrast are the words, "but the philosophy which makes their common denominator stick." By "their" I think he means the set of such political movements as environmentalism that, over the course of history, have a short lifespan. However, their (the political movements') "common denominator" is the philosophy of unreason and self-sacrifice.

How is imminent ice-age, overpopulation, DDT, etc. any more concrete-bound than anti-abortion, anti- stem-cell research, or any of the other of the kaleidoscope of policies that the religionists support? Considering all of the religious-inspired laws of the early 20th century that have been repudiated by the Supreme Court and other legal means, as well as all of the election losses suffered by Republicans in 2006, why is not the religion-inspired evangelical movement considered a short-lived movement within the context of the philosophy of religion? Why is "the global-warming call to statism" short-lived when it has been around for close to 60 years and saturates our culture, and shows no signs of abatement?

Good questions, and I'm not sure I have the answers. Perhaps, specific to your last point, 60 years is nothing when compared to the many hundreds of years the fundamental ideas (and particularly brutal manifestations) of religion have had?

[Paul's Here 0]

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

How is imminent ice-age, overpopulation, DDT, etc. any more concrete-bound than anti-abortion, anti- stem-cell research, or any of the other of the kaleidoscope of policies that the religionists support? Considering all of the religious-inspired laws of the early 20th century that have been repudiated by the Supreme Court and other legal means, as well as all of the election losses suffered by Republicans in 2006, why is not the religion-inspired evangelical movement considered a short-lived movement within the context of the philosophy of religion? Why is "the global-warming call to statism" short-lived when it has been around for close to 60 years and saturates our culture, and shows no signs of abatement?

Good questions, and I'm not sure I have the answers. Perhaps, specific to your last point, 60 years is nothing when compared to the many hundreds of years the fundamental ideas (and particularly brutal manifestations) of religion have had?

I don't think the issue is comparing how many years one particular political agenda lasted when compared to the fundamental ideas. The Crusades lasted for a while, but doesn't exist any longer; the Inquisition lasted a while, but doesn't exist any longer; communism was dominant for a while, but isn't any longer. The same will undoubtedly be true of environmentalism. But none of the aforementioned religious movements are any more harmful than environmentalism simply because they represented religion rather than a materialistic version of mysticism. The fundamental ideas of religion or materialism or mysticism must be argued and refuted. The point I was making was that claiming that concern with the political manifestation of those ideas is short-lived or concrete-bound is not to get to the bottom of the issue: which is to recognize that environmentalism is a major threat, that it has its base in fundamental ideas, and that all aspects of environmentalism must be battled. If your property is threatened due to some environmental regulation, should you just throw up your hands and say, "I'm not going to battle the concrete-bound laws affecting me. I think it is more important to get Republicans out of office?" What is wrong with doing the one that affects you more directly, or doing both?

[jdperren 0]

What is wrong with doing the one that affects you more directly, or doing both?

Exactly.

[Paul's Here 0]

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

Is not the first sentence in the last paragraph contrasted with the second sentence of the last paragraph? Is he not claiming that unreason and self-sacrifice is the essence of religion but not environmentalism which is just a set of concrete bound threats?

What makes me think it isn't a contrast are the words, "but the philosophy which makes their common denominator stick." By "their" I think he means the set of such political movements as environmentalism that, over the course of history, have a short lifespan. However, their (the political movements') "common denominator" is the philosophy of unreason and self-sacrifice.

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

But, as I've mentioned, religion has just as many, if not more, political movements as any other set of ideas. Is fighting against banning abortion concrete-bound? Is demanding contraception be available concrete-bound? Both used to be illegal but not any more. Even if Roe vs. Wade is overturned someday on the Federal level, abortion will still be legal in probably 45 of the 50 states. Does that not imply that religion is being defeated? Religionist had no problem getting a constitutional amendment against alcohol 87 years ago. Abortion is much more fundamental to religious ideology, yet THERE WILL NEVER BE A CONSTITUTIONAL BAN ON ABORTION. At most, Roe vs. Wade may be overturned, but that, by itself, won't make abortion illegal.

Refuting religious ideas has been accomplished many times over by many individuals. Rand has once and for all repudiated any philosophy of unreason and self-sacrifice. What does it mean to defeat religion at this point in history if not fighting to turn back the specific political agenda of the religionists? By the same token, what does it mean to defeat environmentalism if not fighting to turn back their specific political agenda? Why is the latter concrete-bound but the former not? The religionists may have grown in number and become more vocal within the last 20 years, but they have accomplished almost nothing to reverse the anti-religious trend in politics. And, personally, I don't see them accomplishing much in the forseeable future in America.