In response to my post,
>>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?
>

Jim wrote>

>I think you are coming close to demonstrating my point here for me.
>You say environmentalism "in fact . . . may be the only *possible*
>comprehensive worldview."  In other words, it is cosmology,
>metaphysics, and axiology all wrapped into one, eh?  If you add any
>notions of "sacred and profane" to this, and mix in Tillich's notion
>of religion as "ultimate concern," then I think you've got
>environmentalism as religion.  It certainly functions that way for a
>lot of people.  Most of my students, in fact. . . .
>

Steven here, I looked up 'Sacred' and found six uses,

1. Dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity.
2. Worthy of religious veneration: the sacred teachings of the Buddha.
3. Made or declared holy: sacred bread and wine.
4. Dedicated or devoted exclusively to a single use, purpose, or person: 
sacred to the memory of her sister; a private office sacred to the 
President.
5. Worthy of respect; venerable.
6. Of or relating to religious objects, rites, or practices.

Only 5 seems to apply to the discussion of 'respect for nature.'

On 'Profane' I found 4 uses,

1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane 
music.
3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
4. Vulgar; coarse.

Not sure, but only 2 seems to apply, maybe 3 as well.

So, as near as I can see the concept of 'sacred and profane' only barely 
applies to a respect for nature or an ethical system based on nature as a 
matter of ultimate moral concern. Please note that the definition I am 
willing  to accept specifically excludes religion. I like that!


>
I went on,
>>I'm not sure that using the term 'religion' helps this discussion, in fact
>>I'm pretty sure it leads it off track.
>
And Jim replied,
>I don't know--this verges on being an anti-intellectual bias against
>studying culture.  You're a social scientist: surely you must have an
>appreciation for various frameworks for studying human social
>affairs.  The social sciences (roughly speaking) basically take two
>fundamentally different methodological approaches to studying
>culture, one more purely naturalistic or empirical, the other
>interpretive and hermeneutical.  (Naturalism goes by other names,
>behaviorism, positivism, etc.  Interpretive approaches include
>phenomenology, ethnomethodology, semiotics, etc.)  See any decent
>introduction to the philosophy of social science by a competent
>philosopher for more details: e.g.,
>
>Rosenberg, Alexander. 1995. _Philosophy of Social Science_. 2d ed.
>Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
>
>The benefit of studying environmentalism under a lens that includes
>"religion" as an interpretive tool is that it helps us understand
>certain things about environmentalism.  This seems almost
>self-evident to me.  The fact that the claim, "Environmentalism is a
>religion" seems to offend people--Gus diZerega comes to mind--is an
>interesting social phenomenon.  I wish to understand it.  Kathryn Pyne
>Addelson argues that philosophers need to be sociologists, and vice
>versa. I do not have a narrow professional concept of being a
>philosopher; on the contrary, I agree with Addelson and think that
>all philosophy in general and environmental ethics in particular
>would benefit if philosophers worked more like Addelson says they
>should.
>
>Addelson, Kathryn Pyne. 1991. "Why Philosophers Should Become
>Sociologists (and Vice Versa)." In _Impure Thoughts: Essays on
>Philosophy, Feminism, and Ethics_. Philadelphia: Temple University
>Press.
>
>So I disagree with you rather *completely* about using the term
>"religion," and with your claim that it leads the discussion off
>track.  What discussion?  This IS the discussion, at least for the
>moment.  I wish to understand better the vehemence with which Gus
>responds to Crichton, for example.  I wish to understand why Gus (and
>others) are so offended by the statement, "Environmentalism is a
>religion."  To understand this, I seek greater conceptual clarity
>both about environmentalism, but also about religion.
>

Steven here. Well I guess I am a 'social scientist,' but I'm not a very good 
one.

I've always felt that when Leopold used the terms 'extension' and 
'expansion' when writing about ecology and evolution in terms of 
environmental ethics he was inferring that it was a 'new' idea, that it went 
beyond the bounds of previous intellectual analysis. I feel that although 
Leopold was pretty expert in his understanding of the Bible and other 
religious texts, they had little influence on his mature concepts of 
environmental ethics. So, perhaps I'm jaundiced about the use of the term 
'religion' in describing MY brand of environmentalism because I think it 
misses the point that an ethic based on factual knowledge of 
ecological/evolutionary relationships does not fit into the thinking of dead 
Greeks and other Europeans. I have no bias about the study of culture, it's 
how I've made a living the past few years, but I'm not sure that study has 
to fit into any sort of previous framework; other than Leopold's for me at 
least.

Steven

_________________________________________________________________
Store more e-mails with MSN Hotmail Extra Storage – 4 plans to choose from! 
http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/