The New Religion

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Religion, as Ayn Rand observed, is a primitive form of philosophy and Environmentalism is one of the most primitive religions, sharing many fundamental tenets with stone age, mystical nature-worship. Despite claims to be "scientific," its fundamental assumptions have been proven, time after time, to be false and those who accept them do so on faith.

Environmentalism has its gods (nature, the planet, the ecosystem), and its devils (industrialism, technology, and capitalism). It has its concept of the holy (green, eco-friendly). It has its sinners (those with a large "carbon footprint") who can buy salvation by purchasing indulgences (carbon credits). It has its rituals (conservation, recycling) and its holidays (Earth Day). It has its prophets (Al Gore, Rachel Carson) and its heretics and blasphemers ("climate change deniers"). It has its Eden myth (the earth before man) and its Doomsday prophecies (overpopulation, ozone depletion, acid rain, nuclear winter, global warming).

Environmentalism is now the dominant religion in America having co-opted both traditional religion and socialism. As John Kay writing in the Financial Times observed,

Environmentalism offers an alternative account of the natural world to the religious and an alternative anti-capitalist account of the political world to the Marxist. The rise of environmentalism parallels in time and place the decline of religion and of socialism.

Link to full article

Environmentalism permeates ALL of American culture. As HBLer and film critic Scott Holleran observed in the SF Chronicle (link), fundamentalist environmentalism is the religion of Hollywood and modern movies are full of eco-propaganda. This includes the Oscar-winning documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," as well religious epics like "The Day After Tomorrow," Leonardo DiCaprio's "The 11th Hour," and even cartoons targeting children like "Wall-E."

The worst part is that Environmentalism has become the state-sponsored, government-imposed religion. Children are indoctrinated in public schools which they are forced to attend. The federal and state bureaucracies who regulate, restrict, and bankrupt energy producers and automobile manufacturers--and persecute innocents like HBLer Sharlee McNamee for having a picnic table on her own property--are empowered by law and funded by taxpayers.

As Environmentalists gather more totalitarian powers and even seek to make free speech ("climate change denial") a crime, we ought to be very concerned. Theocracy will not happen in less than fifty years or even in the next four years. It is already here.

[Thales 0]

I agree with much of what you say, but one thing that is essential to religion is an object of worship that is not available to your sensory-perceptual system. All of the promises of religion are leveraged by this one thing. Without it, religion is powerless.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

I agree with much of what you say, but one thing that is essential to religion is an object of worship that is not available to your sensory-perceptual system. All of the promises of religion are leveraged by this one thing. Without it, religion is powerless.

I guess it depends on how you define "religion."

Whether Environmentalism is literally, or only metaphorically, a religion, it does share many characteristics with religion. Even more alarming, there are significant similarities between Environmentalism and totalitarian, theocratic religions which makes it a much greater cultural and political threat than post-Enlightenment American Judeo-Christian religion.

If my neighbor believes in the Second Coming or in Little Green Men from Mars, that's his problem and I can laugh at him or ignore him. I can't ignore Environmentalism, because it is imposed -- by force -- on everyone. While most Americans would be outraged if they were required by law to be baptized or if it were a crime have unmarried sex, they do accept laws requiring them to use unleaded gas and forbidding them to manufacture low-mileage cars.

Environmentalism is particularly dangerous because it is not regarded as a religion and, therefore, not restrained by the First Amendment. Nobody is going to court to prevent the teaching of global warming as they have opposed attempts to smuggle creationism into the public school curriculum. The ACLU doesn't question the propriety of funding "green" projects with taxpayer dollars the way they oppose projects connected with religion.

[styg50 0]

The question this raises for me is whether all forms of institutionalized irrationalism will necessarily take on the aspects of 'religion', with all of its traditional calling cards which you list above, or if this is more a case of everything looks the same when its foundation is privation as the most exalted state of man (and by proxy his own death) with altruism as the means?

[Ed from OC 0]

Environmentalists promote a central dogma that is accepted on faith. It contains a view of man as lower than and a threat to nature. Some forms of it are explicitly mystical (e.g., the Gaia philosophy) but not all are. Some of the most ardent "Greens" are New Age mystics reviving pre-Christian religions, such as the Neopaganism movement and its best-known form, Wicca:

The common denominator amongst all the variants of Wicca are a reverence for nature and active ecology, venerations of a Goddess with or without a consort, such as the Horned God, elements of a variety of ancient mythologies, a belief in and practice of magic and sometimes the belief in reincarnation and karma.

There is clearly a strong religious faction among the Greens. The question is the extent to which that component dominates the movement. As it is more consistent than a pseudo-scientific Al Gore-type, I'd argue it is the future of the movement. Also note that Christian churches are increasingly incorporating a pro-Green message, as seen from a site dedicated to "Christian ecology."

From a 1996 article entitled The Greening of the Gospel?:

Cal DeWitt in 1977 sat alone in his office at Calvin College reading the Gospel of John. He had read John 3:16 countless times in his Christian life, but this time he noticed something different in the well-known passage, "God so loved the world."

"That day, it bowled me over," DeWitt recalls. Noticing the Greek word cosmos (world in English), DeWitt was deeply moved by the idea that Christ's death had eternal implications not only for the rebellious human race, but for the cosmos, all of creation, as well. That day was a turning point in DeWitt's understanding of biblical mandates for care of God's creation and stewardship of the earth.

DeWitt has gone on to become a leading light in the contemporary movement among evangelicals toward environmental awareness and activism. In recent years, that movement has blossomed in size and influence. It also has drawn its share of criticism from within evangelical ranks."

Another issue is whether the pseudo-scientific faction is implicitly religious. It may be pseudo-religious, but I'm not sure whether all forms of environmentalism have a specifically mystical base. If not, is it the mysticism or the faith that is the distinguishing characteristic of religion?

[Betsy Speicher 0]

The question this raises for me is whether all forms of institutionalized irrationalism will necessarily take on the aspects of 'religion', with all of its traditional calling cards which you list above, or if this is more a case of everything looks the same when its foundation is privation as the most exalted state of man (and by proxy his own death) with altruism as the means?

All forms of irrationalism hurt the person who accepts or tries to practice them, but the only ones that pose a danger to rational men are the ones that are widely accepted and imposed on people by force.

[ewv 0]

Another issue is whether the pseudo-scientific faction is implicitly religious. It may be pseudo-religious, but I'm not sure whether all forms of environmentalism have a specifically mystical base. If not, is it the mysticism or the faith that is the distinguishing characteristic of religion?

From the Ayn Rand Lexicon:

“Faith” designates blind acceptance of a certain ideational content, acceptance induced by feeling in the absence of evidence or proof.

What is mysticism? Mysticism is the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one’s senses and one’s reason. Mysticism is the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge, such as “instinct,” “intuition,” “revelation,” or any form of “just knowing.”

The viros uniformaly regard nature as an intrinsic value. They reify the abstraction of an "ecosystem" -- refering to interrelated organisms in a selected geographical area -- into something they believe is a real thing on its own with its own intrinsic value, with the whole earth as the ultimate such ecosystem. This was the contribution of Ernst Haeckle, the Hegelian biologist who founded the ecology movement in 19th century Germany and who advocated rule by a bureaucracy of such "scientists". The modern viro movement slavishly follows this, whether or not its individual adherents have ever heard of Haeckle. At the root of the viro movement is German metaphysical mysticism.

With this driving them, it doesn't make much difference what trappings of what other specific religions the viros adopt aside from its role as strategic alliances.

[JohnRgt 0]

I agree with much of what you say, but one thing that is essential to religion is an object of worship that is not available to your sensory-perceptual system. All of the promises of religion are leveraged by this one thing. Without it, religion is powerless.

In a way, they elevate Nature to a supernatural, beyond-the-senses deity. They then ascribe all sorts of character traits to "It" that, traditionally, are associated with the gods of various faiths. Nature, therefore, has wisdom; she has goals and a plan, or at least she strives to maintain this ultimate and delicate balance we see around us; pushed, she punishes Man; she's far, far more powerful than Man could ever be; she's benevolent and, if treated with respect, ie, worshipped, she gives all of herself to us (most of us are far too evil to understand or value her generosity, but what can you expect from such imperfect beings?)

[Paul's Here 0]

I agree with much of what you say, but one thing that is essential to religion is an object of worship that is not available to your sensory-perceptual system. All of the promises of religion are leveraged by this one thing. Without it, religion is powerless.

I guess it depends on how you define "religion."

Whether Environmentalism is literally, or only metaphorically, a religion, it does share many characteristics with religion. Even more alarming, there are significant similarities between Environmentalism and totalitarian, theocratic religions which makes it a much greater cultural and political threat than post-Enlightenment American Judeo-Christian religion.

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

To classify a set of beliefs as a religion, I think the fundamental characteristic is the belief in a supernatural entity. Technically, I don't think one can define environmentalism, at least not yet, as a religion for that reason. True, it shares characteristics, but not the essential one. And one should identify those characteristics as you have accurately done. Environmentalism definitely uses faith and mysticism as means of pushing its irrational agenda with its correlative use of force.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

To classify a set of beliefs as a religion, I think the fundamental characteristic is the belief in a supernatural entity.

That would probably exclude Confucianism, Buddhism, Jainism, and other non-pagan, non-Abrahamic belief systems as religions.

Technically, I don't think one can define environmentalism, at least not yet, as a religion for that reason.

The Shamanic nature-worship of primitives that shares so much with Environmentalism is generally considered a religion too.

True, it shares characteristics, but not the essential one. And one should identify those characteristics as you have accurately done. Environmentalism definitely uses faith and mysticism as means of pushing its irrational agenda with its correlative use of force.

If one defines a religion as a philosophical/ethical system based on faith, then Environmentalism and all the ones I have mentioned above would be included.

[Paul's Here 0]

To classify a set of beliefs as a religion, I think the fundamental characteristic is the belief in a supernatural entity.

That would probably exclude Confucianism, Buddhism, Jainism, and other non-pagan, non-Abrahamic belief systems as religions.

Technically, I don't think one can define environmentalism, at least not yet, as a religion for that reason.

The Shamanic nature-worship of primitives that shares so much with Environmentalism is generally considered a religion too.

True, it shares characteristics, but not the essential one. And one should identify those characteristics as you have accurately done. Environmentalism definitely uses faith and mysticism as means of pushing its irrational agenda with its correlative use of force.

If one defines a religion as a philosophical/ethical system based on faith, then Environmentalism and all the ones I have mentioned above would be included.

It is certainly debatable whether those views could be considered as religions, although they share many features of a religion.

Buddhism is a family of beliefs and practices considered by most to be a religion.

...........

Buddhist schools disagree on what the historical teachings of Gautama Buddha were, so much so that some scholars claim Buddhism does not have a clearly definable common core.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism#cite_note-2)

Jainism seems to fit a religious definition:

Jainism is one of the oldest religions that originated in the Indian subcontinent. Jains believe that every soul is divine and has the potential to achieve God-consciousness. Any soul which has conquered its own inner enemies and achieved the state of supreme being is called jina (Conqueror or Victor).

---------

Jainism differs from other religions in its concept of God. According to its belief, there is no overarching supreme divine creator, owner, preserver or destroyer. Every living soul is potentially divine and the Siddhas who have completely eliminated their karmic bonding, thereby ending their cycle of birth and death, have attained God-consciousness.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism)

Confusionism doesn't seem to fit:

Confucianism (Chinese: 儒家; pinyin: Rújiā) is a Chinese ethical and philosophical system developed from the teachings of the Chinese philosopher Confucius (Kǒng Fūzǐ, or K'ung-fu-tzu, lit. "Master Kung", 551–479 BCE). It focuses on human morality and right action. Confucianism is a complex system of moral, social, political, philosophical, and quasi-religious thought that has had tremendous influence on the culture and history of East Asia. It might be considered a state religion of some East Asian countries, because of governmental promotion of Confucian values.

............

The basic teachings of Confucianism stress the importance of education for moral development of the individual so that the state can be governed by moral virtue rather than by the use of coercive laws.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucianism)

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

Besides, I think the issue should be whether one holds that the particular set of beliefs meets the requirements for a religion, not whether those beliefs are considered by others to be a religion. It seems that there are belief systems that share some or many but not all characteristics of religion (as I think the concept should be defined). Otherwise, any set of ideas accepted on faith would be considered a religion whether or not the system advanced the idea of faith).

[RayK 0]

My dictionary defines religion as; 1) the service and worship of God or the supernatural 2) devotion to a religious faith 3) a personal set or institutionalized system of religious beliefs, attitudes and practices 4) a cause, principle or belief held to with faith and ardor.

Environmentalism seems to fall under all 4 examples.

[Ed from OC 0]

Another issue is whether the pseudo-scientific faction is implicitly religious. It may be pseudo-religious, but I'm not sure whether all forms of environmentalism have a specifically mystical base. If not, is it the mysticism or the faith that is the distinguishing characteristic of religion?

That last line should read: is it faith or supernaturalism that is more essential to religion? There are many ideas accepted on faith, i.e., without reason, but not all are religious. All forms of environmentalism (as a wide-ranging view, not pertaining to a particular scientific issue) rely on faith, but it isn't clear that all environmentalists treat nature as a supernatural entity. If religion doesn't require a supernatural component, then it can be called a religion; if it does, I'd say it can't.

I'm open to changing my view if someone can convince me that environmentalism necessarily contains a supernatural component, however implicit it may be.

[Paul's Here 0]

My dictionary defines religion as; 1) the service and worship of God or the supernatural 2) devotion to a religious faith 3) a personal set or institutionalized system of religious beliefs, attitudes and practices 4) a cause, principle or belief held to with faith and ardor.

Environmentalism seems to fall under all 4 examples.

#2 and #3 (religious beliefs) are assumed by the definition of religion. #4 can be used to assert any belief that is held using faith as religious, but is such belief a part of a religion?

I agree with #1 but it needs a proper genus.

What is the supernatural entity that environmentalism holds to?

[Paul's Here 0]

Another issue is whether the pseudo-scientific faction is implicitly religious. It may be pseudo-religious, but I'm not sure whether all forms of environmentalism have a specifically mystical base. If not, is it the mysticism or the faith that is the distinguishing characteristic of religion?

That last line should read: is it faith or supernaturalism that is more essential to religion? There are many ideas accepted on faith, i.e., without reason, but not all are religious. All forms of environmentalism (as a wide-ranging view, not pertaining to a particular scientific issue) rely on faith, but it isn't clear that all environmentalists treat nature as a supernatural entity. If religion doesn't require a supernatural component, then it can be called a religion; if it does, I'd say it can't.

I'm open to changing my view if someone can convince me that environmentalism necessarily contains a supernatural component, however implicit it may be.

I agree with you on this point.

[RayK 0]

My dictionary defines religion as; 1) the service and worship of God or the supernatural 2) devotion to a religious faith 3) a personal set or institutionalized system of religious beliefs, attitudes and practices 4) a cause, principle or belief held to with faith and ardor.

Environmentalism seems to fall under all 4 examples.

#2 and #3 (religious beliefs) are assumed by the definition of religion. #4 can be used to assert any belief that is held using faith as religious, but is such belief a part of a religion?

I agree with #1 but it needs a proper genus.

What is the supernatural entity that environmentalism holds to?

If something is supposed to be beyond nature/supernatural how can it have a proper, rational genus? The supernatural entity is "mother nature" or in other words the earth itself or even the universe. For example, when a huge tropical storm wipes out some part of a town, some enviornmentalist would believe this to be mother nature "consciously" getting even with us humans. Watch almost any movie being released today and you can get a glimpse of this type of belief.

[Paul's Here 0]

My dictionary defines religion as; 1) the service and worship of God or the supernatural 2) devotion to a religious faith 3) a personal set or institutionalized system of religious beliefs, attitudes and practices 4) a cause, principle or belief held to with faith and ardor.

Environmentalism seems to fall under all 4 examples.

#2 and #3 (religious beliefs) are assumed by the definition of religion. #4 can be used to assert any belief that is held using faith as religious, but is such belief a part of a religion?

I agree with #1 but it needs a proper genus.

What is the supernatural entity that environmentalism holds to?

If something is supposed to be beyond nature/supernatural how can it have a proper, rational genus? The supernatural entity is "mother nature" or in other words the earth itself or even the universe. For example, when a huge tropical storm wipes out some part of a town, some enviornmentalist would believe this to be mother nature "consciously" getting even with us humans. Watch almost any movie being released today and you can get a glimpse of this type of belief.

Not sure what you mean by a rational genus. Any concept requires a definition with a genus and differentia. The definition of religion that I'd use would be a system of beliefs in which a supernatural entity affects or controls aspects of the observable universe and man's actions.

"Mother nature" is not a supernatural entity, at least not as normally used. And I think it is the religious fundamentalists who would hold that nature gets even with humans (I remember one guy saying that AIDS and Hurricane Katrina were payback for some kind of immorality). (Of course, it is actually their god who is using nature to exact his revenge.) Even if one holds that nature is conscious, that is a form of animism which predates modern religious systems. I believe that religions such as Christianity, Judaisim, and Islam don't hold that objects are conscious. But I don't see your point as supernaturalism, which holds that there is an aspect of reality that is beyond the observable universe. Animism is basically a mistaken attempt to understand the world and results from a significant degree of ignorance.

[RayK 0]

Animism is basically a mistaken attempt to understand the world and results from a significant degree of ignorance.

I could just replace Animism with Religion and your sentence would make just as much sense. And religion does the same thing as environmentalist when they ask you to believe in a god, another dimension and something beyond identity which is to say the supernatural.

What I mean by "rational genus" is something that is real, tied to reality. Obviously this cannot be done with a god nor with that something that is supposed to be worshiped by environmentalist nor by religionist. But, if you want a genus for that which is being worshiped, I would have to say (and I might need more thought on this) that environmentalist think that the environment has a "spirit"/consciousness which is the species of the genus entity.

[Paul's Here 0]

Animism is basically a mistaken attempt to understand the world and results from a significant degree of ignorance.

I could just replace Animism with Religion and your sentence would make just as much sense. And religion does the same thing as environmentalist when they ask you to believe in a god, another dimension and something beyond identity which is to say the supernatural.

I don't think it would make as much sense.

What I mean by "rational genus" is something that is real, tied to reality. Obviously this cannot be done with a god nor with that something that is supposed to be worshiped by environmentalist nor by religionist. But, if you want a genus for that which is being worshiped, I would have to say (and I might need more thought on this) that environmentalist think that the environment has a "spirit"/consciousness which is the species of the genus entity.

But "spirit/consciousness" is not supernatural.

[RayK 0]

Animism is basically a mistaken attempt to understand the world and results from a significant degree of ignorance.

I could just replace Animism with Religion and your sentence would make just as much sense. And religion does the same thing as environmentalist when they ask you to believe in a god, another dimension and something beyond identity which is to say the supernatural.

I don't think it would make as much sense.

What I mean by "rational genus" is something that is real, tied to reality. Obviously this cannot be done with a god nor with that something that is supposed to be worshiped by environmentalist nor by religionist. But, if you want a genus for that which is being worshiped, I would have to say (and I might need more thought on this) that environmentalist think that the environment has a "spirit"/consciousness which is the species of the genus entity.

But "spirit/consciousness" is not supernatural.

So, might I assume that you do not think that religion is a mistaken attmept to understnd the world?

In the form that evironmentalist think of it it is supernatural as it has no material form from which it stems, just like a god. Although I do not care to understand the totality of all the garbage that comes out of their mouths, I do think that they think there is a "superconsciousness" that all entities are connected to. Every tree, every stream, every rock, every piece of soil and more, all have consciousness and are all connected to a superconsciousness that allows it, the superconsciouness, to feel the pain that the tree feels when a human saws into it. This superconsciousness also has the ability to take or create actions against the evil-doers, humans. Yes, this does sound idiotic, but these are some of the things I have either read or been told by environmentalist.