Environmentalism as Religion - Joel Garreau

The New Atlantis: Environmentalism as Religion - Joel Garreau

One of my favorite books in graduate school was Garreau's Nine Nations of North America. While neither a sociologist nor a demographer, his journalistic eye offered powerful insights into regional cultures. In 1991, he published Edge City, talking about the transformation of cities going into the 21st Century. I haven't yet gotten to Radical Evolution, which deals with the convergence of technology and biology. The following linked article is several months old, but I just discovered it. Here is how he begins his lengthy article in The New Atlantis:

Traditional religion is having a tough time in parts of the world. Majorities in most European countries have told Gallup pollsters in the last few years that religion does not "occupy an important place" in their lives. Across Europe, Judeo-Christian church attendance is down, as is adherence to religious prohibitions such as those against out-of-wedlock births. And while Americans remain, on average, much more devout than Europeans, there are demographic and regional pockets in this country that resemble Europe in their religious beliefs and practices.

The rejection of traditional religion in these quarters has created a vacuum unlikely to go unfilled; human nature seems to demand a search for order and meaning, and nowadays there is no shortage of options on the menu of belief. Some searchers syncretize Judeo-Christian theology with Eastern or New Age spiritualism. Others seek through science the ultimate answers of our origins, or dream of high-tech transcendence by merging with machines — either approach depending not on rationalism alone but on a faith in the goodness of what rationalism can offer.

For some individuals and societies, the role of religion seems increasingly to be filled by environmentalism. It has become "the religion of choice for urban atheists," according to Michael Crichton, the late science fiction writer (and climate change skeptic). In a widely quoted 2003 speech, Crichton outlined the ways that environmentalism "remaps" Judeo-Christian beliefs:

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.

In parts of northern Europe, this new faith is now the mainstream. "Denmark and Sweden float along like small, content, durable dinghies of secular life, where most people are nonreligious and don't worship Jesus or Vishnu, don't revere sacred texts, don't pray, and don't give much credence to the essential dogmas of the world's great faiths," observes Phil Zuckerman in his 2008 book Society without God. Instead, he writes, these places have become "clean and green." This new faith has very concrete policy implications; the countries where it has the most purchase tend also to have instituted policies that climate activists endorse. To better understand the future of climate policy, we must understand where "ecotheology" has come from and where it is likely to lead. ...

Some other interesting excerpts:

... Our uniquely Western approach to the natural world was shaped fundamentally by Athens and Jerusalem. The ancient Greeks began a systematic philosophical observation of flora and fauna; from their work grew the long study of natural history. Meanwhile, the Judeo-Christian teachings about the natural world begin with the beginning: there is but one God, which means that there is a knowable order to nature; He created man in His image, which gives man an elevated place in that order; and He gave man mastery over the natural world:

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. [Genesis 1:28-29]

In his seminal essay "The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis," published in Science magazine in 1967, historian Lynn Townsend White, Jr. argues that those Biblical precepts made Christianity, "especially in its Western form," the "most anthropocentric religion the world has seen." In stark contrast to pagan animism, Christianity posited "a dualism of man and nature" and "insisted that it is God's will that man exploit nature for his proper ends." Whereas older pagan creeds gave a cyclical account of time, Christianity presumed a teleological direction to history, and with it the possibility of progress. This belief in progress was inherent in modern science, which, wedded to technology, made possible the Industrial Revolution. Thus was the power to control nature achieved by a civilization that had inherited the license to exploit it.

To White, this was not a positive historical development. ...

And ...

... More recently, the late analytic philosopher William P. Alston outlined in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy what he considered the essential characteristics of religions. They include a distinction between sacred and profane objects; ritual acts focused upon sacred objects; a moral code; feelings of awe, mystery, and guilt; adoration in the presence of sacred objects and during rituals; a worldview that includes a notion of where the individual fits; and a cohesive social group of the likeminded.

Environmentalism lines up pretty readily with both of those accounts of religion. As climate change literally transforms the heavens above us, faith-based environmentalism increasingly sports saints, sins, prophets, predictions, heretics, demons, sacraments, and rituals. Chief among its holy men is Al Gore — who, according to his supporters, was crucified in the 2000 election, then rose from the political dead and ascended to heaven twice — not only as a Nobel deity, but an Academy Awards angel. He speaks of "Creation care" and cites the Bible in hopes of appealing to evangelicals.

Selling indulgences is out of fashion these days. But you can now assuage your guilt by buying carbon offsets. ...

And ...

Allenby, writing in a 2008 article on GreenBiz.com, continues:

A recent study from the Swedish Ministry of Sustainable Development argues that males have a disproportionately larger impact on global warming (“women cause considerably fewer carbon dioxide emissions than men and thus considerably less climate change”). The chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that those who suggest that climate change is not a catastrophic challenge are no different than Hitler.... E.O. Wilson calls such people parasites. Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman writes that “global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.”

The sheer volume of vicious language employed to recast social and cultural trends in terms of their carbon footprint suggests the rise of what Allenby calls a dangerous new "carbon fundamentalism."

Some observers detect parallels between the ecological movement and the medieval Church. "One could see Greenpeacers as crusaders, with the industrialist cast as the infidel," writes Richard North in New Scientist. ...

And ...

... That is the essence of Michael Crichton's 2003 speech. "Increasingly," he said, "it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief." Environmentalism, he argued, has become totally divorced from science. "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."...

... Leftists also sometimes disparage environmentalism as religion. In their case, the main objection is usually pragmatic: rationalism effects change and religion doesn't. So, for instance, the Sixties radical Murray Bookchin saw the way environmentalism was hooking up with New Age spirituality as pathetic. "The real cancer that afflicts the planet is capitalism and hierarchy," he wrote. "I don't think we can count on prayers, rituals, and good vibes to remove this cancer. I think we have to fight it actively and with all the power we have." Bookchin, a self-described revolutionary, dismissed green spirituality as "flaky."...

And ...

... A deeper concern is the expansion of irrationalism in the making of public policy. Of course, no policy debate can ever be reduced to matters of pure reason; there will always be fundamentally clashing values and visions that cannot be settled by rationality alone. But the rhetoric of many environmentalists is more than just a working out of those fundamental differences. The language of the carbon fundamentalists "indicates a shift from [seeking to help] the public and policymakers understand a complex issue, to demonizing disagreement," as Braden Allenby has written. "The data-driven and exploratory processes of science are choked off by inculcation of belief systems that rely on archetypal and emotive strength.... The authority of science is relied on not for factual enlightenment but as ideological foundation for authoritarian policy."...

... So what happens if, say, we discover that it is not possible to return the environment to the conditions we desire, as James Lovelock expects? What happens if evidence accumulates that we should address climate change with methods that the carbon Calvinists don't approve of? To what extent, if any, would devotees of the "natural" accept reengineering the planet? How long will it take, if ever, for nuclear power to be accepted as green?

In the years ahead, we will see whether the supposedly scientific debates over the environment can really be conducted by fact and reason alone, or whether necessary change, whatever that may turn out be, will require some new Reformation. For if environmental matters really have become matters of faith — if environmentalism has become a new front in the longstanding culture wars — then what place is left for the crucial function of pragmatic, democratic decision-making?

Comments

[David]

I think that critical thinking and democratic decision making is becoming a thing of the past. In light of so called political agendas on both the left and right. I agree that the "religion" of clean and green is in fact taking priority over critical and thoughtful science. As an example even making inroads towards a religion of it's own !

Maybe just an overall result of a general view that we are our own Savior and not a Creator / Redeemer known as Jesus our Lord.

I also expect that people will continue to get Gen 1:28-29 wrong unless they are confronted with the fact of our sin against God and His creation. Our Redemtion is not only about restoring a relationship with a Holy God but with His creation as well. So I hole little hope about the future of the environment.

I like the efforts of environmentalist to a point, but feel they miss the bigger picture of Restoration when it relates to Gen 1:28-29 and our own Salvation.

[phil_style]

I can't agree with the assertion that environmentalism has replaced religion for "urban atheists"... I work in an environmental consultancy. Almost everyone who I work with is atheist, (not becasue they're environmentalists, but becasue it's London) and they all pursue environmental action largely because it has human utility (environments collapse, so do human/social groups).

We don't see books about how medical care is the "religion" of the atheists. Unless you're going to buy into deep-ecology (gaia hypothesis and the like) then environmentalism really is much like the pursuit of medicine. We build hospitals to look after the sick. And we ensure high standards of air quality, water quality and protect critical habitats for the ssimilar reasons.

[phil_style]

In fact the more I read Joel Garreau the more angry I'm becoming. He strikes me as completely unfamiliar with what environmental work is, what our legal frameworks are here in Europe regarding the environment and why they are in place. Why is it that Denmark/Sweden always get referenced in these discussions? Just becasue they happen to have high % of non-traditionally religious people and strong environmental credentials? This is a tiny data set and does NOTHING to show global trends.

Garreau might be addressing some aspects of fringe new-age environmental though but he's lost the plot if he thinks that the environment/green industry and it's policy counterparts are up to their knees in some kind of pholisophical religious reformation. A few extreme quotes from carbon skeptics does not undermine, or represent environmentalism.

Environmentalism is essentially about trying to ensure that things can live. Environmentalism is pro-life. Garreau - get on board!

[David]

Hi Phil, I must say I don't agree with you. Don't think Garreau is addressing the fringe or new-age environmental thoughts here. But main stream issues. I have no data to back that up just experience in discussions with those who call themselves environmentalist. Seems to me that politics is always part of the discussion along with shacky science and a dooms day mentality. I know this is extremely gereral in it's context and I'm sorry for that. But there is a reason for it and a reason that most environmentalists I know don't believe in God, let alone a Savior. And if we don't do this or that regardless of the effects it has on people then we will be distroying the environment in some way. I wish your last paragraph was really true and I expect for some in the field it is. But for too many others there is always another agenda. Stop oil production, no nuclear power, can't build here or there because of..., mother earth this and that, global warming brought about by man etc.....

[phil_style]

David,

First of all, with respect to "other" agendas I think your last staement reveals why people are (in my opinion un-necessarily) skeptical of environemntalism.

Restrictions on nuclear power are about safe storage of VERY toxic waste materials, risks associated with reactor leak, and the knwown measurable impacts of cooling water on water quality. Environmentalists understand the need for electrical energy. In fact, many "greenies" support the diversification of energy generation - part of which includes a nuclear component. The most vocal opponents of nuclear sites tend to be fringe elements and local residents (NIMBYs).

Reducing oil production is about managing the known, toxic effects of prolific (un-regulated) oil exploration, transportation and combustion. To deny these impacts on human health and well-being is reckless in the least

Global warming/ climate impacts brought about by man is based on preventing a proven chamiecal reaction (the greenhouse effect) that the industrialist scientists discovered over 100 eyars ago. This can be demonstrated in the lab. The "debate" over serverity goes on, but the basic physics ARE demonstrable.

Being prudent about where we construct things is common sense. Take for example flood-plains. Environmental legisaltion (pushed for by those evil environmentalists) drives the restriction of bulding settlements on flood plains in Europe. Ignore that advice if you want, but you'd be a fool once the heavy rains start. Take noise emission standards - (the backbone of construction/development restrictions in urban areas) are driven by conceern for human health. Yes, you can't do "this or that" especailly" when it means the permanent loss of hearing for people like you and me.

All of these things you mention are not alterior religious agendas. They are common sense, based on the precautionary principle and scientific investigation to achieve results that mean human society can continue to flourish. Even the globally accepted definition of "sustainability" is anthropocentric! Check the Rio conference of 1992. Societal well being and health is the foundational concern of the lead statement issued by that conference, and this definition continues to drive sustainability efforts today.

The "mother earth" thing is a red herrring. Deep ecologists are few and far between. It's a metaphor anyway. Just as is Jesus' comparison of God the Father to a female chicken.

[phil_style]

"most environmentalists I know don't believe in God, let alone a Savior"

Aside from the fact that this is anecdotal I want to address some assumptions hidden within this assertion.
Perhaps many environmentalists are not theists because it is actually that christians (in particular) are not willing to call themselves environmentalists. They have been preached to that somehow wanting to protect our environment means you are in bed with "ungodly" religions, or denying humanity's reliance on God. This is bunk, and just as weak as saying that christians should not care for the sick because that denies our need for a saviour too.

When it comes down to it (whilst not wanting to wear the "green" badge) most christians DO actually care about their environment. And we explicitly know we are dependant on it. Take a man's clean air away and he will die. Only an idiot, or a total fatalist would deny the connection between the health/cleanliness of the natural environment and human well-being. Don't believe me? Try inhaling sulphur dioxide.

[Michael W. Kruse]

Phil, thanks for your push back here. I always value your comments on this topic.

In Garreau’s defense, I did not understand this article to be about research and applied scientists working on environmental issues. Rather I read him to be addressing how the environment is perceived in the popular mind and how opinion makers seek to shape that mind. I thought a key paragraph was this one:

“Describing environmentalism as a religion is not equivalent to saying that global warming is not real. Indeed, the evidence for it is overwhelming, and there are powerful reasons to believe that humans are causing it. But no matter its empirical basis, environmentalism is progressively taking the social form of a religion and fulfilling some of the individual needs associated with religion, with major political and policy implications.”

I do find non-scientists who are avid environmentalists who argue for policies and values based on science and the concerns you raise. But I find them to be a minority among the avid non-scientist environmentalist I encounter. Science functions as a proof-text about deeply held metaphysical beliefs. Citing science becomes a way of deflecting having to address an incoherent set of metaphysical beliefs. Furthermore, I think there are opinion makers who welcome this wedding of religion and science. They know that the science of environmentalism can be tedious and complex. It is hard to generate a passionate movement for something without a grand narrative. And as the axiom goes, not every movement needs a god, but nearly every movement seems to need as Satan.

So again, I don’t the Garreau is doubting environmental science or its importance for one moment. Based on what I know of his work I suspect he is deeply committed to issues of environmental concern. It is the wedding of religion to environmentalism in the public mind to promote policy is what I understood this article to be about.

[phil_style]

Sorry if the push was a little strong Michael.

Environment gets me fired up ;)

[Michael W. Kruse]

And that is why I so appreciate your perspective.