Paul Rubin has written an article in WSJ regarding Environmentalism as a type of religion which I find quite interesting. The factors he lists as similarities are pretty dead on:

• There is a holy day—Earth Day.

• There are food taboos.

• There is no prayer, but there are self-sacrificing rituals that are not particularly useful.

• Belief systems are embraced with no logical basis.

• There are sacred structures.

• Skeptics are not merely people unconvinced by the evidence: They are treated as evil sinners.

One could also add:

• Prophet - Al Gore.

• Scripture - The IPCC reports.

However, environmentalism is far from being alone in the specter of issues and causes that people become fundamental about, and many political opinions tend to get stuck because people refuse to change their them - even when faced with overwhelming contradictory evidence. This is not confined to the "right", and possibly afflicts more people on the "left". Scientists routinely refutes diverging opinions with ad hominem argumentation, freezing out those who disagree, withholding resources etc.  Economists (sorta one myself) believe their social science is a hard science with evidence based facts proved by complex mathematics. Attempting to critcize a parenting is something I can absolutely forget about since I don't have children myself. Even our hero Einstein refused to accept quantum theory.

What are your opinions on this subject? Can these opinions-turned-fundamentalism be compared to religion?

Views: 650

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Exactly my point. The best thing about the scientific method is that everything can end up being falsified if a better theory emerges. It's a paradigm shift, just as religion was replaced by scientific method.

Question is, can you accept a paradigm shift in one of your non-religious beliefs? If not, aren't they very similar to religion?

I wish I had written another OP to be perfectly honest...

I find religion to be part of a bigger problem - that many people end up leaving thinking to others and prefer being spoon fed opinions, be it from religion, party or cause. They therefore refuse to alter their opinion unless whomever is serving them does so, and play a game of blindly following the leader.

When I choose which party to vote for I do not look at which I agree with the most, but with which I disagree the least. That way I do not force myself to follow opinions of others unless I actually agree. I tend to find people who 100% support something to be no different than religious fundamentalists.

I'll take a sip of it too :)

But I would like to pose a hypothetical question: If one scans the brain of a religious person and finds out which parts of the brain is stimulated by religious thoughts, and find that the same areas are stimulated by a deep adherence to other beliefs, shouldn't these beliefs also carry the same categorization?

Arcus... on the same thought, I bet we'd find singulatarians are activating the religious area of their brains.

doone - A question I am left with.

If there are areas in the brain "specialized" to deal with religious thoughts, does that not lend creedence to the concept of religion? And if there isn't, then which parts of the brain deals with religion, and what other thoughts are dealt with in the same regions?

As a side note, I am really eager to check out those scans you were talking about, sounds very interesting. :)

No. Updating our beliefs on the basis of new evidence is a good thing. But being obstinate is not the same thing as being religious (which is devoting oneself to an unprovable premise).


an unprovable premise? An good example wood be man-made global warming.




Climate change theory has proved itself valid. In the 80's it predicted the current climate. That is a way of proofing a theory, that it does predict the future accurately.



Man-made global warming is not a fact.  Climate change is a fact.  Climate change has been a fact throughout human history.  Climates have changed long before humans existed.  So how am I wrong that man-made global warming is an unprovable premise?  On another note, psychics predict the future not climate change theory.  This theory from what I understand is based on evidence collected from our natural world.  I must confess that I am skeptical that you know the difference between man-made global warming and climate change.

I must accept that you are correct.  I was referring to a previous statement made by another poster.  I would rather say that man-made climate change has not been proven.  I would also say that the evidence is miniscule.  However the evidence that climates change is enormous.
It is a theory, a fact?  And who is the little boy?  Who has been watching Al Gore?  In case you needed clarification theories and facts are different things.  If climates have changed throughout history and they continue to change are we also responsible for past changes?  Not to burst your little bubble but no evidence exists that humans have any bearing on climate change.  Does this mean that we do not affect climate change? NO!  Unfortunately for some  I require actual evidence before I proclaim something is fact.  A prophet in the church of environmentalism such as James Hansen does nothing to prove anything except that people are still gullible enough to believe unscientific claims.

I think we need to seperate environmentalism and Environmentalism, as in those who attempt to reduce our impact on the environment vs those who treat the environment as a deity which humanity is sinning against.

Some examples of things which generally hurt the environment rather then help it, but is high on the Environmentalist list are:

Locally grown food - smaller production units decreases efficiency.

Recycling - remelting glass is no better than melting new sand. Paper should be burned and ashes sent to foresting areas (naturs way of solving it).

Solar panels- requires massive amounts of energy to produce vs gain from operation.

Hydroelectric - massive local habitat destruction.

Low energy bulbs - silly in areas where your house is heated for 9 months out of the year.

Hybrid cars - has a substantially higher environmetal impact in production and higway mileage is no better than a regular car.

But misunderstand me correctly, I have nothing against environmentalism; I am opposed to Environmentalism gone avry - when the focus is on the problem and not solutions. Personally, I do my utmost to reduce my impact, and I am a supporter of carbon taxation, pesticide reduction, heavy fines for pollution, I eat little meat etc.

Also, this was only part of the question I posed. We all know that a number of religious people are impervious to reason due to their strongly held conviction, I just find that a number of non-religious people are equally impervious to reason in non-religious matters for the very same reason.


Edit: To move the discussion a bit forward. In Europe many people believe the healthcare service should be wholly government run. In the US many believe the government should have nothing to do with the healthcare service at all. Both sides present the most horrid picture of what will happen if even parts of the opposite system is imposed, and blankly refuses to accept any evidence that there are positive and negative aspects of both.

Locally grown food: "Consumers are increasingly being told that “local” foods—typically regarded as those grown within 100 miles of the point of purchase—are environmentally superior to foods that are grown farther away. But research suggests that this is not the case (Shimizu and Desrochers, 2008). The transport of agricultural products actually accounts for a relatively small proportion of the total energy-related emissions generated in food production (Weber and Matthews, 2008). In fact, in many instances, imports have a smaller environmental “footprint” than locally produced food."

Glass could essentially be dumped into the deep ocean and return in a few millenia as sand. Paper should probably be burned and the ashes returned to the foresting areas so similate nature's way of recycling. Metals should of course be recycled. Plastics can be burned to produce energy and reduce landfills.

"New research shows, albeit unintentional, that generating electricity with solar panels can also be a very bad idea. In some cases, producing electricity by solar panels releases more greenhouse gases than producing electricity by gas or even coal."

In much of Europe and the US it is cold 7-10 months out of the year. A regular light bulb demands less resources to produce and does not contain heavy metals such as mercury and quicksilver. It burnes much more energy, the vast majority being turned into heat, which essentially only reduces the heating bill. In warmer regions the low energy bulbs make sense, but not in i.e. Northern Europe or Canada.

I can't find the study at the moment, but someone had calculated the life cycle environmental impact of different car models. As I recall it was the VW Polo which was the least polluting. It would be much better for the environment if people did not lug around 4 unused seats and a few m2 of empty air at all time.


I didn't really want to discuss the environment, but it is a good example that people become dogmatic to the point where suboptimal solutions are preferred because the sides have become too entrenched.

"locally grown" has different cost analyses considering location and product. No single study trying to make grand declarations can have any value. Growing locally is NOT only about carbon footprint, it is about divulging of information and local economies. Cash crops do not benefit anyone other than a few corporations, that does not help humans.


© 2020   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service