Environmentalism/Mother Nature & Science - Theologies of the Modern Age?

[Ahiga]

I am not well versed enough in the Sciences of technology nor that of nature enough to make a truly accurate assessment on my own, so I do not wish to make any claims of scientific or natural affairs like Global Warming or Singularity. That being said, in recent days when thinking and arguing on different topics I started to think about how many of us accept scientific facts chanted to us with as much blind faith as the religious masses of old. Likewise, when it comes to environmentalism and mother nature, the subject of climate change (regardless of if you feel it is true or not - I don't care about that for this topic) is taken to with as much proselytizing and zeal as Christian and Muslim Holy Wars of the past.

Do you think Science (the technology aspect) or Nature (Climate Change, Ecology, and so on) exists as a pseudo-religion for some people today?

[Monarchist]

I believe that... for certain people, "Mother Nature" has become the new God(s). They are so obsessed with the preservation of the current order on and above Earth that it can only be deemed a 'faith' in adhering to Earth. When faced with the so-called "Climate Gate" scandal, people like Al Gore continue to cite the very same data which had been discredited a mere two weeks previous to it. How can that be called anything other than a theological certainty on his part? It certainly isn't scientific.

[Groundtotem]

I am not well versed enough in the Sciences of technology nor that of nature enough to make a truly accurate assessment on my own, so I do not wish to make any claims of scientific or natural affairs like Global Warming or Singularity. That being said, in recent days when thinking and arguing on different topics I started to think about how many of us accept scientific facts chanted to us with as much blind faith as the religious masses of old. Likewise, when it comes to environmentalism and mother nature, the subject of climate change (regardless of if you feel it is true or not - I don't care about that for this topic) is taken to with as much proselytizing and zeal as Christian and Muslim Holy Wars of the past.

Do you think Science (the technology aspect) or Nature (Climate Change, Ecology, and so on) exists as a pseudo-religion for some people today?

The reason why people is having an easier time accepting Science and "mother nature" is that it has evidence, been studied and have research behind it. But not everything that scientist's says can be taken as true if they don't have any evidence to back it up. To say that we accept what scientist say by blind faith is not true.

I believe that... for certain people, "Mother Nature" has become the new God(s). They are so obsessed with the preservation of the current order on and above Earth that it can only be deemed a 'faith' in adhering to Earth. When faced with the so-called "Climate Gate" scandal, people like Al Gore continue to cite the very same data which had been discredited a mere two weeks previous to it. How can that be called anything other than a theological certainty on his part? It certainly isn't scientific.

"mother nature" is refered to the natural state of nature. "mother nature" has not become new God(s) in any way since nature is what nature is and there is no "master mind" that controlls it. It's not a faith by any means.

Edit: The problem here is that you guys are looking at nature and science through a religious view point, look at it with neutral eye's.

Groundtotem

[Ludicus]

Do you think Science... exists as a pseudo-religion for some people today

Yes.
Carl Sagan: "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on the evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe"
The science puts priority on the empirical method, and the deductive method is secondary. Inverting priorities makes science into a pseudo religion. Science is not a religion because it lacks the major characteristics that define a religion; sometimes (not always) calling science a religion is recognized as an ideological attack (rather then a neutral observation of the facts)

[Arch-hereticK]

We're made of the same basic material as the rest of the universe. We are molecules arranged in a pattern that we define as alive and alive to an extent that we call conscious, through us the universe may know itself.
That's nature and science, but not theology.

[bleach]

I see it differently -- science is not a theology, but it has become a tool that is manipulated by some to reinforce their theology (or ideology would be a more accurate term).

For example:
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2009/...to_become.html

And another:
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2008/...e_the_ide.html


There is a lot of agenda-driven research in which the conclusions drawn simply do not follow from the empirical evidence. Especially in the soft (read: malleable) sciences.

As for the natural world, it is has been a subject of religious awe before, as far back as neolithic peoples worshiping the spirits of the earth or what have you. Perhaps the industrialization of the modern world has made that kind of experience more rare and precious. I know that in America at least environmentalism started with Trascendentalists of New England, who were living in a rapidly industrializing world.

[chilon]

There is a lot of agenda-driven research in which the conclusions drawn simply do not follow from the empirical evidence. Especially in the soft (read: malleable) sciences.

Which examples can you provide of conclusions in "malleable sciences" that do not follow from the empirical evidence?

[December]

Science is only seen as to be a new religion by people who are religious. They can't comprehend not believing in God, so they assume people that are concerned about pollution etc and are also athiest must treat it as a pseudo-religion. My theory, anyway.

[cfmonkey45]

Science is only seen as to be a new religion by people who are religious. They can't comprehend not believing in God, so they assume people that are concerned about pollution etc and are also athiest must treat it as a pseudo-religion. My theory, anyway.

Not necessarily. Its used as a rhetorical device to show, sometime fallaciously, the observation that atheists, like theists, have a tendency to revere specific ideologies in a quasi-religious fashion. Examples of this would be humanism and individualism, environmentalism, and total secularism.

[Tankbuster]

Not necessarily. Its used as a rhetorical device to show, sometime fallaciously, the observation that atheists, like theists, have a tendency to revere specific ideologies in a quasi-religious fashion. Examples of this would be humanism and individualism, environmentalism, and total secularism.

Of course. We're only human, and humans have a tendency for revering and personifying things. Creating Gods in other words.

Now, environmentalism in itself is not a religion, it's a strategy for self-preservation. However, from some environmentalists you regularly hear the idea that we've somehow 'sinned' against Mother Nature and that we need to please her again. Here you do indeed smell the unmistakeble stench of religion.

Could you perhaps expand on that one? I'm aware of aversion therapy on homosexuals, but never about children.

What he's referring to is this garbage about how the only difference between boys and girls is the way they were raised by their parents. It's some kind of dogma that's often peddled by feminists and the Men's Movement (although as Phier pointed out, many sociologists still fall into that trap) and it goes something like this: the different interests of men and women are entirely conditioned by society: for example boys tend to be interested in cars, mechanical toys and the like, while girls are more inclined to play with dolls and set up their own little web of inter-doll relationships. Now these people maintain that if you were to never tell children that, say, boys shouldn't play with dolls, then boys would play with dolls just as much as with cars and vice versa.
Of course they deny that the emotional and especially the hormonal circuitry of men and women are fundamentally different from each other and they are bound to lead to different behaviour patterns.
That's why you see many boys today who are told that it's not okay to be masculine (this is actually starting to permeate our culture); these boys grow up feeling that they miss something, but never realising what because their fathers thought it was wrong to make them into men. It's very, very dangerous.

[Zawisza]

What he's referring to is this garbage about how the only difference between boys and girls is the way they were raised by their parents. It's some kind of dogma that's often peddled by feminists and the Men's Movement (although as Phier pointed out, many sociologists still fall into that trap) and it goes something like this: the different interests of men and women are entirely conditioned by society: for example boys tend to be interested in cars, mechanical toys and the like, while girls are more inclined to play with dolls and set up their own little web of inter-doll relationships. Now these people maintain that if you were to never tell children that, say, boys shouldn't play with dolls, then boys would play with dolls just as much as with cars and vice versa.
Of course they deny that the emotional and especially the hormonal circuitry of men and women are fundamentally different from each other and they are bound to lead to different behaviour patterns.

Thanks for that. Touted by feminists? Good night. I'm all for women's rights, but extremists come in all colours and both genders. This "gender conditioning" thing sounds like a load of bushwa, hogwash, flim-flam and hootenanny. Most boys, no matter what toys you give them, are going to play war and monsters with them, kick them around and pull them apart to see how they're made and then put them back together again. And girls will still play tea party, house parties, country club or doctors. And you're right. They won't want the toys because they don't appeal to their most primitive impulses. I wonder if an experiment on girls' and boys' true preferences has ever been conducted?

That's why you see many boys today who are told that it's not okay to be masculine (this is actually starting to permeate our culture); these boys grow up feeling that they miss something, but never realising what because their fathers thought it was wrong to make them into men. It's very, very dangerous.

And it's on TV, as well, like in advertisements. For instance, ones that show the supposed superiority of women over men. The women are wise and in control, and men are bumbling morons who just want to go back to fiddling with their toys.

Do you think Science (the technology aspect) or Nature (Climate Change, Ecology, and so on) exists as a pseudo-religion for some people today?

I don't think that people like Gore or other climate change advocates have a religious agenda, but some of them do have an agenda that is wholly unscientific. They don't spread their ideas through facts, they spread fear and spin. People respond to marketing campaigns with clips from Futurama and titles like "An Inconvenient Truth", and not hard, boring data and conclusions. This is when theories like climate change stop being science and become blind belief. Most people don't really know what it's all about, and yet they still believe it - because they're afraid, not because it's scientific. But there are certain crazed-out environmentalists who want to save the planet because they believe in "Gaia" and that the Earth is some living spirit. That's where science stops.

If anything, I think a lot of people are quite averted to science. They don't trust doctors or scientists - unless they're being scared - and even then, only if they're aided by the mass media. For the ordinary person, pollution and climate change and disease isn't science. It's their fears, in physical form. To combat it, they don't want science, they want a miracle. And numerous scientific advances appear that way. They expect science to produce miracles for them all the time. But when they find that our levels of knowledge is still very limited, they become frustrated by it. That's why people turn to "Gaia" and "alternative medicines". For them, "science" is just a plus, reassurance. They just want something to be scared of, and then something to come along and conquer it.

[Tankbuster]

Thanks for that. Touted by feminists? Good night. I'm all for women's rights, but extremists come in all colours and both genders. This "gender conditioning" thing sounds like a load of bushwa, hogwash, flim-flam and hootenanny. Most boys, no matter what toys you give them, are going to play war and monsters with them, kick them around and pull them apart to see how they're made and then put them back together again. And girls will still play tea party, house parties, country club or doctors. And you're right. They won't want the toys because they don't appeal to their most primitive impulses. I wonder if an experiment on girls' and boys' true preferences has ever been conducted?

Good question; I have no idea and I couldn't really find something. However, most real-life experiments that were conducted seem to point to the fact that boys that are brought up with dolls and the like will feel like they miss something and that they aren't being themselves. There have been many cases where children that had undergone a gender transformation without them knowing would feel different without knowing why.
Men are more technically and mechanically inclined, women are fond of relationships and group dynamics. These might be stereotypes, but they are stereotypes that are bound to occur.

And it's on TV, as well, like in advertisements. For instance, ones that show the supposed superiority of women over men. The women are wise and in control, and men are bumbling morons who just want to go back to fiddling with their toys.

Pretty much. Now, I don't happen to care about that at all. I think those kind of role model reversals and stereotypes are funny as hell. They make for some good entertainment: blonds=dumb, women=controlling, men=only-interested-in-sex. It's entertaining.
But what I am worried about is how young children perceive this. How does a young adolescent feel about having his sex constantly challenged, and how masculinity is seen as something vague at best, negative at worst?
That simply cannot be conducive to healthy masculinity.

Holy . I have actual experience with this. One of my girlfriend's Womens' Studies professors actually peddled this nonsense (among other gems) and argued about it for a whole class. I almost went in there myself to tell her to STFU and learn something about human physiology, but e-mails to the department chair probably worked better. I didn't know it was a wide-spread, ideologically driven matter. Can't believe it's being taught in universities.

It's becoming less and less frequent but it's still far too prevalent: psychologists and sociologists still have very few classes on biology and basic genetics in their curriculum, yet evolutionairy psychology and the like are quite possibly the most interesting and promising fields in that area!
It has to do with the weird biological ideas that Freud had. Freud himself believed that evolution as a process had left deep marks in the way we behaved and in our brains. However, he used the Lamarckian evolutionairy theories to account for most of those ideas (for example: psychological issues can get trapped in the physiological tissues and be passed on to other generations in that way). Psycho-analysts after Freud realised that these biological ideas were pretty much dead wrong, but instead of trying to make psycho-analysis match with the actual Darwinian theories of evolution, they just dropped biology and evolution out of their field of interest altogether.
That's why courses Psychology and Sociology will teach you all about psycho-analysis and behavioural psychology, but you don't hear anything about testosterone or genetic influences.

[motiv-8]

Science is only seen as to be a new religion by people who are religious. They can't comprehend not believing in God. . .

They can't? Interesting pigeon-holing. Are we to really believe that religious people have never considered the alternatives, then considered that they disagree with those alternatives? Needless to say, your caricature of the un-thinking religious is deeply flawed.

so they assume people that are concerned about pollution etc and are also athiest must treat it as a pseudo-religion. My theory, anyway.

Equally flawed is the assumption that being concerned with temporal aspects such as "pollution etc." is not within the realm of the religious mind as well.

Nevermind, embarrassingly I completely misread the entire statement. Apologies.

[Time Commander Bob]

Concern for the environment by itself is by no means religious or theological. Generally people are concerned for the environment because of one of the following (or a mixture):
-It can benefit more human beings in the long term to conserve certain natural resources or look after the environment in a certain way (such as air and water quality).
-Some people like the natural beauty of the environment just as one admires a piece of art. If you destroyed a priceless masterpiece in front of an art-lover's face they would probably be pretty annoyed. In addition, if we kill off a certain species then we are denying future generations of humans from seeing it ever again.
-Others think that some animals have some rights or at least interests (ie not wanting to be killed or in pain) that should be considered as well, though this does not mean equating the life of one panda as equal to the life of one human.
These approaches are somewhat understandable, the first is something most people probably agree with at least to an extent (not that popularity strengthens or weakens a particular position). I can see nothing religious about any of these.
However, there are other views such as the Gaia Hypothesis when taken to the ridiculous extreme which start with a reasonable scientific idea and then run away into fantasy land with it and away from the realm of science. This I can see why some may view as religious.

As for the so-called "technological singularity" (not the big bang singularity) this is quite a similar case to the Gaia Hypothesis taken to the extreme. Although the basis is sound (ie there has been dramatic technological progress since the industrial revolution and it has changed human life considerably), the extension of this to think that there is some sort of culmination point or ultimate goal that we are headed for is almost religious in itself. Sure computers will become more powerful and there will probably be a greater integration of electronics with the human body, but to talk of technological singularity as some sort of anthropic destiny is not really scientific.

[Exarch]

no,
scientists use the scientific method to acquire knowledge and ideally, science should be apolitical
compare that to most religions that rely on faith' as opposed to the scientific method and are on the whole very political

[motiv-8]

What he's referring to is this garbage about how the only difference between boys and girls is the way they were raised by their parents. It's some kind of dogma that's often peddled by feminists and the Men's Movement (although as Phier pointed out, many sociologists still fall into that trap) and it goes something like this: the different interests of men and women are entirely conditioned by society: for example boys tend to be interested in cars, mechanical toys and the like, while girls are more inclined to play with dolls and set up their own little web of inter-doll relationships. Now these people maintain that if you were to never tell children that, say, boys shouldn't play with dolls, then boys would play with dolls just as much as with cars and vice versa.
Of course they deny that the emotional and especially the hormonal circuitry of men and women are fundamentally different from each other and they are bound to lead to different behaviour patterns.
That's why you see many boys today who are told that it's not okay to be masculine (this is actually starting to permeate our culture); these boys grow up feeling that they miss something, but never realising what because their fathers thought it was wrong to make them into men. It's very, very dangerous.

Holy . I have actual experience with this. One of my girlfriend's Womens' Studies professors actually peddled this nonsense (among other gems) and argued about it for a whole class. I almost went in there myself to tell her to STFU and learn something about human physiology, but e-mails to the department chair probably worked better. I didn't know it was a wide-spread, ideologically driven matter. Can't believe it's being taught in universities.

[motiv-8]

Psycho-analysts after Freud realised that these biological ideas were pretty much dead wrong, but instead of trying to make psycho-analysis match with the actual Darwinian theories of evolution, they just dropped biology and evolution out of their field of interest altogether.
That's why courses Psychology and Sociology will teach you all about psycho-analysis and behavioural psychology, but you don't hear anything about testosterone or genetic influences.

Wow...