Amen

It would explain why John Duffy was walking around the Liberal convention telling enviro-sinners to "Repent! Climate end is near!":

http://www.stephentaylor.ca/archives/000795.html

Arrrgh! Blasphemy I say.

Seriously, there is a lot of merit in this theory except that progressives will not admit it. For them the "r" word is never to be used. Instead they will find some other term for this "religious fervour".

I used to think that Crichton was a fool. The more I read his writings, the more I realize that he is right on the mark. His thoughts about this being a religion are accurate. His notes on our current state of fear are incredibly sound.

If it wasn't a religious act, I'd say Amen brother Michael, Amen!

Pretty good analogy, except that a great deal of the Bible is verifiable, factually and historically. One great proof of the authenticity of God's Word is the flawless fulfillment of prophecy. Unfortunatley, enviro-prophets apparently are fast and loose with the facts and can't seem to make a predicion work to save their lives.

And man is also irrevokably moral. When God-given moral sense is suppressed (such as when one embraces the destruction of human life via abortion) it re-emerges in some other area, e.g., moral outrage at someone cutting down a tree.

Rubbish! (I have not personally owned a car for the past twenty-five years, because I call those things 'wheels for f**king wetbacks',( and I have the remains of three motorcycles in my rented basement, that got trashed by third-world dogmeat!
My personal philosophy, is to own nothing that the government would want to steal from me- that rules out property. Own nothing that you can't carry, and be prepared to move at a moment's notice!
Among the company I keep, the debate is whether religion represents mental illness, or brain damage. (There is a third option- religious people are really stooooopid, sez moi!

Seems to me one can apply the same trope to conservatism. Things were great back in the day (Golden Age; Eden); but all this relativistic, secular humanist, commie, druggie, hippie, nanny-state, multicultural CRAP came along and we fell from grace. But now we have Stephen Harper. Hallelujah!

Hey, this is fun. On to the next bunch I don't like. Except it seems kind of funny for conservatives to diss religion by accusing their opponents of it. I thought that sort of thing was our trick.

No. Tetzel is not dead. Pay your pence; be contrite; Gaia will be appeased. Your enviro-sins are forgiven; until the next time.
...-

EIPS - The Resurrection of Indulgences or Is Tetzel really dead?

"Caricature of Tetzel's sale of indulgences. The last two lines of the German poem recount the famous verse attributed to Tetzel: "As soon as the coin in the ..."
www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=indulgences

If a religion is to be compared to enviromentalism then pick one that is more similar, that is, one that would be comfortable imposing its ridiculous beliefs on the day to day activities of "non-believers" and which cannot distinguish between state and religion.

Crichton has some good insights, but please do not overlook one very, VERY important FACT: environmentalism is pure, unadulterated PAGAN EARTH WORSHIPPING and has NOTHING to do with Judeo-Christian values. Similarities are purely coincidental.

If it is a religion (and it is), it's Wiccan. And their god is Gaia. Even if they won't yet admit to it - the scientific and economic voodoo is giving them away as much as anything.

Dawg, even though no one agrees with you on anything, at least you posted somewhat intelligently in the past.

Worshipping stones may not be far behind!

BTW - Islam evolved for stone worship!
There's a a tale about a magical stone that fell from the sky!

Google -stone worship- you'll see!

If a religion is to be compared to enviromentalism then pick one that is more similar, that is, one that would be comfortable imposing its ridiculous beliefs on the day to day activities of "non-believers" and which cannot distinguish between state and religion.

Sounds like Jerry Falwell. Your point?

It has been said by many...environmentalism is the new religion...dare I say one of the religions of the New Age.
I agree with what Richard Ball said.
For some of the others: Religion is man made rules, differing from faith in God.

"Among the company I keep, the debate is whether religion represents mental illness, or brain damage. (There is a third option- religious people are really stooooopid, sez moi!"

You may debate whether Jesus Christ was mentally ill, brain-damaged, or just really stoooooopid, but he still died for your sins, he still rose from the dead, and he's still coming back again.

So you might want to hone your gee-you-were-stooooopid speech -- you're gonna need it someday.

And he's just the kind of person who would forgive you for saying it.

Which is why I prefer the company of Christ and those who follow him to the arrogance of those who know better.

Great post. I read "State of Fear' some time ago and I was pleased to know that someone had the brains to write such an insightful and timely book.

My dilemma if it can be called that is that I don't believe in a magical powerful deity, nor do I believe in environmentalism as a religion.

In short I am one person who is not wired to required a belief to give meaning to my life. I am not fearful, nor am I unhappy. On the contrary, I am at peace and proud to not be a follower of anything.

I don't care to belong to clubs, groups and I would rather stick pins in my eyes than be a part of anything resembling a committee. Yet I have friends, family and career.

What's wrong with me?

hogwash! to state that if one rejects religion, then one must beleive in something else can only be from the viewpoint of the religious. i quit believing in talking snakes after grade school and still don't believe in the supernatural. i don't know why those that believe in the supernatural have to thinj all must in some form or another. i'm very happy to live my life trying to practice the Golden Rule (maybe that's my religion). if we all actually did try to treat others as we would like to be treated, then maybe religion would become antiquated.

anyways, i always mistrust right-wing libertarians like crichton. i think it's the libertarian view that has corrupted the republicans and has brought the u.s. to it's current sorry state. ayn rand's philosophy, in my mind, is very destructive. unregulated establishments always lead to fascism.

unregulated establishments always lead to fascism.

Rather it leads to prosperity, freedom and opportunity, but not for the lazy and the meek.

The other appealing thing for the believers is that it absolves them of responsibility.
They get to blame others for all their problems and take no responsibility for anything they do or don't.
Just like socialism come to think of it!

Great essay.

Crighton's comparison with Judeo-Christian belief is incomplete on one level, though: environmentalism has no saviour or prophet or figure head. Al Gore or David Suzuki, I suppose, might be present-day "evangelists" but there isn't a single person to whom they can point as an example of who we should be. (Or at least I haven't read/seen it.)

Nit-picking I know, but I just had to note it.

While we're on the topic of nailing ones theses to the door, I can't believe that anyone would ever believe that they believe in not believing. Indeed, I believe that believing is a phenomenon of the neurological architecture of the human brain. I believe that existence exists. I believe that empiricism is an effective methodology for modeling existence. I believe that it's time for dinner.

Vitruvius: A useful bumper sticker I saw some time ago.

Everyone needs something to believe in.

So I believe I'll have another beer.

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP

Commander in Chief

Frankenstein Battalion

Knecht Rupprecht Division

Hans Corps

1st Saint Nicolaas Army

Army Group “True North”

Bumper sticker? I believe that I don't even know 'er.

The Charismatic Church of Cataclysmic Climate Change Inc.

Syncro

I don't believe, Mark, people who believe that "there is a single person they can point as an example of who we should be", as you put it, principally, perhaps, because I don't believe that we should be a single person.

Consider the following simple case. If one were to pick such a single person, said person would have to either have or not have a Y chromosome. Should those people who are in the obverse set be so constrained to be, or not be, or even half (Eric the half a bee) be? Neuropsychophysiologically, I believe that's not reasonable.

I guess I just don't believe in saviors and prophets. I believe that humans do two things: they try to make their lives better, and they try to fix the mistakes caused by the last time they tried to make their lives better. As Albert Camus wrote:

"I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountains One always finds one's burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night filled mountain, in itself forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy." (Emphasis mine.)

I believe that form follows function. I don't believe that in the current political context that the form of awareness of the environment is following its function. But then, I believe that most forms in the political context don't follow their function, except for the form of politics itself. And that's a problem.

As H. L. Mencken said, "The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods."

We keep getting caught up in prefrontal fantasies and lymbic autonminity that we cannot eliminate. When that happens, perhaps the best we can do is remember the words of Alexander Pope, from his essay On Man:

Know then thyself, presume not God to scan;
The proper study of mankind is Man.
Placed on this isthmus of a middle state,
A being darkly wise, and rudely great:
With too much knowledge for the skeptic side
With too much weakness for the Stoic's pride,
He hangs between; in doubt to act, or rest.
In doubt to deem himself a god, or beast;
In doubt his mind or body to prefer,
Born but to die, and reasoning but to err;
Alike in ignorance, his reason such,
Whether he thinks too little, or too much:
Chaos of thought and passion, all confused;
Still by himself abused, or disabused;
Created half to rise, and half to fall;
Great lord of all things, yet a prey to all;
Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurled:
The glory, jest, and riddle of the world!

Vitruvius: " ... I believe that it's time for dinner"

I don't share that believe ... yet.

Max: Would you believe a cheese appetizer, Chief?

Chief: Appetizer? I don't even know 'er.

sagaciousiconoclast.blogspot.com/2007/04/exquisitely-preserved-milk.html

God, I wish I wrote that. Wonderful stuff. Thanks for sharing Kate.

Since everybody is thowing out creative theories, try this one on.
It could be, folks, that the garden of Eden was our time in our mother's womb, sloshing about contentedly, being fed and kept warm through no effort on out part, and as adults we srive to return to that state. Then came the fall from grace, the trauma of child birth and the exposure to the realities of this world. If we survive, we have someone or something to be thankful for. As humans and totally self centered, we may take credit for our survival and pay tribute to ourselves the rest of our lives, worshipping our "intellect", but most of us,thanks to our virginal neurological system, interpret the warm blanket, the warm milk, and the vague form of the humans around us as god-like, truly out of this world and unfathenable. For many, this will be hard wired into out psyche, while some of us will simply decide that we must provide comfort to others similar to that provided to us. All are socially acceptable. The dangerous ones are the ones that have unwavering "faith" in their intellect, and maintain a hardwired belief in the supernatural. Their interpretation and belief system is the only way.

I believe that the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome, in the Twin Cities, was the worst mistake made, ever, for Twins baseball. The Metropolitan Stadium ruled.

http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/min/history/min_history_metropolitan_stadium.jsp

Don't miss Crichton's essay at the end of "State of Fear": Why Politicized Science is Dangerous http://www.michaelcrichton.com/essay-stateoffear-whypoliticizedscienceisdangerous.html
In a very confused world, Crichton seems to be someone who see clearly.

Frickin bang on. Nice work Mr. Crichton.

Another funny thing about environmentalism is that it imposes this wall between humanity and the rest of nature instead of incorporating us into it. Statements like "Look what we're doing to nature and the environment!" subtly implies that we are not part of nature and the environment for if we were there would be nothing to worry about. Any action by us as part of nature would just be nature 'working on' nature. But no we're super-'natural' so-to-speak. We're able to reach into nature from the outside and affect it. The environmental movement requires the concept that man was a special creation (a judeao-christian idea) and placed into nature so that it can make calls for societal change.

Crichton is right, except for that part about atheists.

Most environmentalists, in my experience, are most definitely "spiritual", on way or another, be it Christian, New Age, or something else.

You will most definitely NOT find an atheist or libertarian eco-fascist. Rational minds do simply do not fall for doomsday preachers, religious or otherwise.

As G.K. Chesterton observed, 'once a man stops believing in God, he'll believe in anything.'

"Another funny thing about environmentalism is that it imposes this wall between humanity and the rest of nature instead of incorporating us into it. Statements like "Look what we're doing to nature and the environment!" subtly implies that we are not part of nature and the environment for if we were there would be nothing to worry about. Any action by us as part of nature would just be nature 'working on' nature. But no we're super-'natural' so-to-speak. We're able to reach into nature from the outside and affect it. The environmental movement requires the concept that man was a special creation (a judeao-christian idea) and placed into nature so that it can make calls for societal change."

Umm...wrong on all counts. Read a little Lovelock (e.g. "Healing Gaia : practical medicine for the planet." New York: Harmony Books) and you'll see for yourself. We are part of nature, not "above" it. Nor can we actively manage something as complex as the environment--if we try, we'll end up being slaves to it. The best we can hope to do is to live in harmony with it and try not to destroy it.

I blame the notion of "dominion" for some of the problems we are currently facing. That Judaeo-Christian notion of stewardship is precisely what environmentalists oppose.

Note that most religions,if not all, prophesies an end time, a doomsday, a day of resurrection and reckoning, to occur sometime in the future. That sometime being presently unknown to us.

Now note that Al Gore has set the time. He states that ten years in the future, from the present, is the beginning of the end time, unless we repent NOW.

One might safely assume that the Oscar has elevated him to *God* status. He has declared that there is a "deafening scientific concensus", where no consensus actually exists. We can't see it; only he can, along with his disciples, of course.

The prophet has descended and is among us.

"Nor can we actively manage something as complex as the environment--if we try, we'll end up being slaves to it"
Umm..Dr Dawg

That's it; terminate and issue welfare benefits to all the worlds , resources managers, gardeners , farmers , miners, foresters, geologists, biologists, genetisists, planners, fire fighters, fishermen, hunters, weather forecasters, engineers, vets., doctors, scientists and construction workers; because the talking dog howls at the moon.

That's not actually what Lovelock says. Read him before making smart-ass comments.

None of these experts attempts to manage the environment as a whole. The work that they do is a means of living within our environment, not controlling it. Lovelock gives the example of the (much less complex) human body. What if, to make it work, we had to be on call every moment: to make the heart pump, the blood flow, the neurons fire, the digestive juices secrete, etc. Instead, we do what those gardeners and foresters do: we look after our bodies and try to ensure that we persist. There's a fairly important difference there.

Yo Dr Dawg, do you read posts before you attack them? "Umm...wrong on all counts." How am 'I' wrong? My comments were about the character of statements re: crap I read and hear. The only way I can be "Umm...wrong on all counts." is if you're stating that I've never heard statements like "Let's be kind to nature.", etc.