You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front
Crichton: Environmentalism is "religion of choice for urban atheists"
2003-12-03
Hat tip: Viking Pundit
You may know Micheal Crichton (CRY-ton) as the author of Jurassic Park, Congo, The Sphere, et al., and, of course, Timeline. This excerpt is from his speech to the Commonwealth Club in San Francsico on Sept. 15, 2003 (EFL!):
Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.

Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday—these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don’t want to talk anybody out of them, as I don’t want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don’t want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can’t talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.

And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren’t necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It’s about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.
Posted by:Dar

#7  The math is irrelevant. Remember the earth was created in seven days? Most people don't have time or ability to follow the analysis. Religious scholars used to argue about how many angels could stand on the head of a pin. Completely meaningless disussion but folks trusted the parish priest anyway. So you pick who you believe, Pope John or David Suzuki, and let the scientists argue over atmospheric loading and temperature gradients.

I think it was Pat O'Reilly on Chris Matthews show the other night who described his christian convictions with the logic that his faith was a good idea just in case it turned out there really was a righteous God and heaven and hell and the judgement day existed.

Well, almost everyone uses the same logic when it comes to Kyoto. Just in case.
Posted by: john   2003-12-3 9:22:54 PM  

#6  No matter how wacky people think that Creationaism is the folks that teach global warming in schools are absolute dingdongs.

For instance, I have not spent much time studying the idea of reducing carbon dioxide emmisions. Yet it strikes me that removing any gas will reduce overall pressure in the aptmospere due to the Law of Partial Pressures. Wouldn't the reduction in pressure result in the vaporization of water into vapor to compensate? Water vapor is a green house gas also. Do we intend to cover two thirds of the Earth's surface with a tarp to prevent vaporization?

Don't even bother punching holes in the ridiculous theory that I pulled out of my butt from half remembered physics lectures that are 20 years old. Look carefully at the math behind the global warming studies; it's bunk.
Posted by: Super Hose   2003-12-3 6:03:36 PM  

#5  Wow, I've been saying something like this for a while, too, but I never thought about the Eden analogies. That's brilliant. (Still don't care for Crichton's books, though.)

It's not just environmentalism. Pretty much anything can be used as a substitute religion, as long as it 1) requires some sort of sacrifice, and 2) allows the believer to look down on nonbelievers. If there's some sort of study of arcane knowledge involved, so much the better. At some point, the rituals and sacrifices begin to matter more than the original goals.

For example, for a while there were a lot of people who seemed to belong to the Church of Physical Fitness. That petered out after a while, though.

You don't necessarily need to be an atheist to subscribe to these ersatz religions. Some Christians (say) seem to believe that modern Christianity is not demanding enough for them.
Posted by: Angie Schultz   2003-12-3 5:18:06 PM  

#4  Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.

As usual I'm one of them.
Fetch Me the Homelite!
Posted by: Shipman   2003-12-3 3:45:23 PM  

#3  wow... read the whole thing... great speech
Posted by: ----------<<<<--   2003-12-3 3:33:36 PM  

#2  I like the comment some guy I can't remember made about environmentalists: "Gaia is their goddess - the goddess of dirt."
Posted by: M. Murcek   2003-12-3 2:53:55 PM  

#1  Yes! I've been saying for years that activists with their various causes act like the most whacked-out born-agains (you know the ones I mean - find Jesus at an AA meeting and throw the tv out because the Smurfs were satanic). I don't know which faith, if any, is right. But it seems like a lot of people need that certainty, even if they tend to scoff at established religions. I wonder if they are even aware that they fit the same profile.
Posted by: BH   2003-12-3 2:22:57 PM  

00:00