 |
 |
Sorry if that previous message went thru, my finger slipped. Jim T said in response to my posting about the definition of religion, >It is easy to *parody* the idea that a comprehensive worldview may be >a religion by reducing the idea _ad absurdum_ to examples like your >"reading science fiction" is a religion. But this is to miss rather >completely the point of what a COMPREHENSIVE WORLDVIEW is. (sorry >for shouting). :-) > It occurred to me that environmentalism is the only rational comprehensive worldview. In fact it may be the only *possible* comprehensive worldview. A world view based on anything other than evolutionary and ecological relationships would not be comprehensive and would, in fact, be seriously deficient. I still don't think that makes it a religion, but it does make for some interesting thoughts. If religions do not consider ecological and evolutionary relationships are they non-comprehensive and therefore *not* really religions? If so, what are they? Is environmentalism the one and true religion, given the definition? Getting off this mobius loop, I do think that the idea that environmentalism has become an ideology, and in some cases an over-reaction, is worth discussion. I know that looking at the world thru green lenses can lead you astray at times. I am especially concerned that some sub-sets of environmentalism (animal rights, anti-gm, etc.) have overshadowed 'real' issues such as global warming, population control, etc. I'm not sure that using the term 'religion' helps this discussion, in fact I'm pretty sure it leads it off track. Steven _________________________________________________________________ Click, drag and drop. My MSN is the simple way to design your homepage. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200364ave/direct/01/