 |
 |
I sent an earlier reply to Jim, but it seems to have vanished on in the ether. Here is another maing the same points and picking up, on what has since appeared. First- I think it was abundantly clear that my reply was to Crichton and his imbeclic charge (yes, Jim, imbecelic or dishonest or both), and I wrote there that I was not going to discuss the nature of religion as such. The clear sense of the article was that I was working within Crichton's definition of religion. Second, I explicitly wrote that SOME environmentalists did in fact resemble Crichton's charge, and even pointed out SOME Earth First!ers as examples. I did not regard that as a contradiction. As to why, see below. Jim does not want me to stay within Crichton's framework - which is what I was addressing. Fine - but remember, since I explicitly stated in my paper that I was not going to discuss religion as such, I was not being ignorant of other definitions, I was trying to stay focused on Crichton's stupid one, and the similar views of right wingers who agree with him. So let's leave Crichton behind and move on to more interesting discussions of these issues. There can be a serious inflation of terms over time, and I suggest this is happening to religion when environmentalism is described as a religion. Here are the reasons for my statement: 1. I cannot be a Christian without following the Christian religion - right? But I can very coherently be an environmentalist and follow Christianity, Buddhism, Paganism, or some other belief. If I can be a Pagan or a Buddhist or a Christian or an atheist or some other thing, and ALSO be an environmentalist, in what sense is environmentalism an all-encompassing view? If it is, then maybe Christianity is not a religion since it must not encompass what environmentalism encompasses and so is not an all encompassing view. If it does, so Christianity and environmentalism overlap on most vital issues, how can I be a Pagan and an environmentalist? Wouldn't being an environmentalist then require me to be a Christian? Or are these all encompassing views mutually incoherent so anyone who claims to be both an environmentalistr and a follower of some widely recognized religion is simply confused. 2. I think the science fiction example is very well-taken with respect to this issue. While environmentalism does NOT provide an all-encompassing view, any more than baseball or abolitionism or science fiction, it can provide a great deal of meaning to the lives of those who identify with its priorities. These people can become irrational and fanatically devoted to it - for them it serves as a religion, I guess. But that does not make it a religion any more than the existence of baseball fanatics makes baseball a religion. (By the way in Chicago today a baseball was exploded in what to some anthropologists might appear to be a religious ritual.) 3. That some scholar, or set of scholars, chooses to expand a word beyond its common meaning may or may not be appropriate. It depends on the yield in understanding compared to the misunderstandings it generates. Such expansions may be useful in certain contexts, but quite possibly not in others. For example, if "religion" simply means "comprehensive world view" then as Jim stated, liberalism can be a religion. But then the separation of religion from government, a central liberal notion, is incoherent and illogical. Yet it clearly is not incoherent or illogical in practice, even though there are areas where distinctions and boundaries can appear contestable. 4. More on comprehensiveness of view without reference to what we usually consider religions: Looking at environmentalism, it is possible also to be a liberal environmentalist (and within the broadly liberal camp, a free-market environmentalist, a conservative environmentalist, a progressive liberal environmentalist, etc.), a socialist environmentalist, and a Nazi environmentalist. This suggests to me that being an environmentalist tells us what ISSUES we are concerned about, but nothing at all about the context of meaning we apply to those issues, and a general kind of orientation towards those issues- that natural processes and communities be respected. But if a religion does anything at all, it must give us a all embracing context of meaning. To rub this point in, I can be a liberal Pagan environmentalist, someone else can be a conservative Christian environmentalist, someone else can be a Nazi Pagan environmentalist, and the permutations and combinations just go on and on. Are all these separate religions? What if I practice my religious rites with others who differ from me on some of these other issues? I see a lot of confusion and not much coherence from such a sloppy widening of the term religion. So I have to conclude that, in practice, environmentalism as a religion, if it is to mean anything coherent at all, refers to a certain fanatical style of being an environmentalist, akin to fanatic science fiction fans - perhaps the ones who learn Klingon, etc., and certain fanatic baseball fans. Maybe the ones who went to the ritual in Chicago where the ball was blown up. BUT it does make sense to say that for some Nature can be a religion, usually meaning wild nature. John Muir and, with a very different flavor, Robinson Jeffers, might be examples as might many environmental leaders over the years. And likely a significant number of other people. Many people have found that experiences in nature give greater meaning and context to their lives. I think this kind of experience is religious. For some, this may be enough, for others, such as myself, we have a yet bigger context in which we make sense of these experiences. But for those who do not, such as Jeffers, it is probably right on to say that Nature is their religion in a reasonable sense of the word. However - and this is important when considering Crichtonian silliness, this says nothing at all about a person's view regarding global warming, vegetarianism, or the existence of eden. At best, those who claim environmentalism is a religion link this kind of experience in nature with an environmental movement concerned with specific issues, and that still doesn't fly. One can be an environmentalist for entirely anthropocentric reasons (we will all die if we don't change) or eco- centric reasons (it is ethically wrong to act in this way) or religious reasons (we are out of harmony with the wider world that is the source of the meaning we experience, or alternatively, we are disregarding the will of God). So I think the confusions here come from a serious inflation of what constitutes a comprehensive world view. Into your court, Jim! best wishes, gus Quoting Jim Tantillo <[log in to unmask]>: snip... > What is a religion? > > Does environmentalism--or at least certain forms of > environmentalism--qualify as a religion? > > jt > > > > > > > > > > > > >Steven > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > >Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee when you click here. > >http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 > -------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through Whitman College Webmail 3.1