News 
 Local News 
 News 
 General 
 Environment: the new religion 

Environment: the new religion

26 Aug, 2008 10:10 AM
Despite our comfortable materialistic lives, there are many who ask: Is that all?

They want a meaning for life and yearn for a spiritual life. Some follow the traditional religions, others embrace paranormal beliefs and many follow a variety of spiritual paths.

A new religion has been invented: Environmentalism. The rise of environmentalism parallels in time and place the decline of Christianity and socialism. This environmental religion is terrified of doubt, scepticism and uncertainty yet claims to be underpinned by science. It is a fundamentalist religion with a fear of nature. It has its own high priests such as Al Gore and a holy writ, such as the IPCC reports. Like many religious followers, few have ever read and understood the holy books from cover to cover.

Like many fundamentalist religions, it attracts believers by announcing apocalyptic calamities unless we change our ways. Its credo is repeated endlessly and a new language has been invented. Logic, contrary data or questioning are not permitted. Heretics are inquisitorially destroyed.

It states that now is the most important time in history and people are told that humanity is facing the greatest crisis in the history of time. We must make great sacrifices. Now. This religion uses thinking out of the Judeo-Christian tradition: If the world has been destroyed, then we humans are to blame.

This new age religion tries to demystify the world, a world that its adherents neither experience nor try to understand. The apocalyptic doomsdayers promote their new religion with seven second television grabs. A disunity between religion and science is created. The science that derived from the Enlightenment and which bathes in doubt, scepticism and uncertainty is willingly thrown overboard.

Contrary facts are just ignored. Enthusiastic reporting by non-scientists is undertaken. They report new science with alarmist implications yet there is no reporting of contrary information.

Non-scientific journalists and public celebrities write polemics that encourage public alarm. The environmental religion produces widespread fear and a longing for simple all encompassing narratives. It offers an alternative account of a natural world with which adherents have little contact.

Environmentalism embraces a myth of the Fall: the loss of harmony between man and nature caused by our materialistic society. It searches for the lost Eden, which probably never existed.

In the ‘good old days’ there was only struggle, starvation and unemployment, not harmony with nature. Environmental evangelism has ritual and language that have substituted substance.

Over historical, archaeological and geological time, there have been thousands of global coolings and global warmings. Global coolings have always depopulated the Earth.

We are the first humans ever to fear a warm climate. Environmentalism exacerbates disease and food shortages and destroys economies. It is a highly flawed religion. Its morality and ethics are questionable.

When the environmentalists recognise the religious aspects of their stance, then real discussion with other scientists becomes possible. Until then, they are just like the creationists who claim that their stance is scientific when their very foundations are religious and dogmatic. The contradictory religion of environmentalism has given people a purpose in life and, despite ignoring all the contrary science, this religion provides some of the stitches that hold the fabric of society together.

The laboratory for religious life and practice is experience. Religion is not about pie in the sky when we die, it is about the present. Religion tries to make sense of what’s happening to us now and gives us the mechanisms whereby we can have hope for a meaningful life, in spite its disappointments. Religion gives us the mechanism to cope with failure. Environmentalism cannot provide for these needs.

* Ian Plimer is Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Page:
1

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Unfortunately the churches have failed to give any meaning to our planet other that something given to humans, as the whole purpose of Creation. Creationists have "created" Earth as a resource for humans to "dominate", but now they are stuck in a time-warp with the threats due to over-population and climate change! Honouring Creation and respecting the planet is now not compatible with Christian theology, so they ignore it! No wonder people have looked into Environmental "gods" of Nature and this has become a new religion.
Posted by Vivienne, 26/08/2008 1:08:36 PM
I fail to see what Ian Plimer is trying to achieve here by attaching such a meaningless analogy to the subject of environmentalism. I would think that being such an anti-creationalist that he is, Ian should be pointing out that the typical environmentalist has a much clearer view of the world when he is not clouded by the false belief that a non-existent being will save us from our own stupidity and neglect. How can you possibly believe that the immense impact humans have made on their environment is acceptable and just the way things are? That our efforts to burn every bit of fossil fuel we can get our bloodstained hands on is a good thing? Sit back and keep rolling in your economic security, Mr Plimer. As that is obviously your chosen religion. But to me, nothing is more important than keeping healthy the global home we all reside in. Keep burning the material that makes up your house in order to have a cozy fireplace and the roof will soon colapse on you.
Posted by Liam Fitzpatrick, 26/08/2008 1:15:30 PM
According to Plimer ’Religion is not about when we die, it is about the present. Religion tries to make sense of what’s happening to us now and gives us the mechanisms whereby we can have hope for a meaningful life, in spite its disappointments’. This is a godless concept, promising empty hope, no reality. He is wrong about religion. Environmentalism, on the other hand is an active movement protecting and restoring the environment in real time just as the extractive industries are destroying it. He is wrong about environmentalism. As a geologist Plimer deals in million of years and sees the succession of species as normal and inevitable. But many humans reject the notion of trashing the planet to have the best possible time and then dying…they are committed to working out how we can engineer a sustainable ecosystem on the planet. This is not a religion, nor is it incompatible with religion; it is giving Homo sapiens and the Earth a chance for a long and relatively harmonious relationship. Of all humans, educators and power-brokers need to provide leadership on population and environmental management, rather than ridiculing people who care about the world we live in. Graham Brookman
Posted by graham brookman, 26/08/2008 6:17:30 PM
Mr Pilmer's dual attack on both religious belief and the environmental movement betrays his own lack of respect of other people and of differing views. His own barely disguised blind faith in business and unending consumption regardless of cost is transparent. Instead of disputing facts, in a fundamentalist dogmatic attack he simply goes for extreme ideological personal attacks, projecting on others his own weaknesses. Meanwhile his old expired ideas are becoming fossilised as we speak. Mr Plimer himself has joined the piles of extinct fossils unable to adapt to a changing world environment and changing globalised culture and ideas, remarcably similar to old PM Howard also discarded to the dustbin of history. Maybe in this newly fossilised position of irrelevance he will find his archaeological and geological skills will give him some useful insight: you too shall pass, only our legacy to the future generations and to this unique planet will remain. Our job is through action to help shape that future, yours is to do little and talk much, simply becoming another dust speck in the the geological record.
Posted by Charles Medina, 27/08/2008 3:50:35 PM
Both Liam and Graham are typical environmentalists. They have not gone back even 100 years into the past to see what the situation was then. We are not burning any more fossil fuel today than what was being used 300+ years ago. Before 1770 Southern Australia burned for the summer and Northern Australia for the winter putting more CO2 into the air per year than we do today. The fires in Indonesia 2002 put the same amount of CO2 into the air as the total output by Australians burning fossil for nine months. They only lasted for two months.
Posted by alexmac, 28/08/2008 6:45:12 PM
alexmac (28/8/08) And you're a typical denier. CO2 from bushfires is not fossil CO2. I don't think Prof. Plimer would thank you for your, ahem, "help".
Posted by Mangrove Jack, 2/09/2008 7:17:26 AM
Exactly how significant carbon emissions are on the environment is neither here nor there. Regardless of that we will reach peak oil and the limit in terms of human population and the Earth's carrying capacity of that. Better that we take a more environmental mind set now rather than latter. And by the way environmentalism is not the new religion. Universal Protectionism ( http://www.geocities.com/universa lprotectionism ) is ;)
Posted by CaptainAmerica, 15/09/2008 5:47:21 AM
Dear all, While I strongly agree with the old Plim dog on a number of things including global warming and the strange nature of the beast that us humans are, I seldom let my opinion out of the closet. You see. You can make a lot of money by sheltering the masses from the ever-looming apocalypse of the world that we live in. In fact, I will go as far to say that I am convinced that one A. Gore more than likely doesn’t give a rats. I mean how much moola do you reckon he has made out of this garbage? Be warned some of the best cons in history are going to take place within the next 20yrs and I will almost certainly be there to support you in your endeavors on your road to perdition that is the elusive rainbow you are chasing in your search for meaning. History is repeating itself and the marketing strategy hasn’t changed one bit. Call it what you want, religion or not its stupidity, "when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion." (Thats R. Dawkins for the inept, look into that one also.) Kind regards, Craig ‘will take your moneyz’ Fleming
Posted by Craig Fleming, 22/09/2008 1:18:49 AM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Environmentalism is not the answer: Ian Plimer
Environmentalism is not the answer: Ian Plimer

Most popular articles

Indaily
1) Apple iPhone 4 32GB44 plans 12%
2) Apple iPhone 4 16GB44 plans 6%
3) HTC Desire4 plans 2%
4) Apple iPhone 3GS 8GB33 plans 2%
5) Sony Ericsson Xperia X10 Mini Pro37 plans 1%

Mobile Phones | Broadband Plans

Get the best deal at Fairfax Digital - Rural Press



The Independent Weekly







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Navigate

Classifieds

More Ways to Read

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2010. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...