Conservative Bastion
The only blog that can factually claim to shift the Bell Curve, along with the hearts & minds of America, to the right.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Michael Crichton Owns Environmentalists
Why is Michael Crichton so freaking smart? Follow the link and you can read the rest of this speech. The speech is 3 1/2 years old and he has since written a book on the subject.

Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.

Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don't want to talk anybody out of them, as I don't want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don't want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can't talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.

And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.

Am I exaggerating to make a point? I am afraid not. Because we know a lot more about the world than we did forty or fifty years ago. And what we know now is not so supportive of certain core environmental myths, yet the myths do not die. Let's examine some of those beliefs.

There is no Eden. There never was. What was that Eden of the wonderful mythic past? Is it the time when infant mortality was 80%, when four children in five died of disease before the age of five? When one woman in six died in childbirth? When the average lifespan was 40, as it was in America a century ago. When plagues swept across the planet, killing millions in a stroke. Was it when millions starved to death? Is that when it was Eden?

Beautiful.
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
18 Comments:
"Michael Crichton owns religion" might have been an appropriate title.

I assume most people would disagree with his comment "the best people, the most enlightened people---do not believe in any religion"

Other than nietschke, i really can't think any mainstream "enlightened person" who was an atheist. In fact quite the opposite Newton, Einstein, Da vinci all believed in a God.

I think his argument is very good warning on the danger of extrapolation of scientific data. And a very good agruement in general because it do not lend itself to rebuttal. Labeling enviromentalism as a religion, does not make a perfect fit.
His examples a somewhat less that dazzling? DDT, the banning potentially could have saved lives. overuse in agricultural can cause DDT to lose its effectiveness, see the current problem in inda. The enviromentalist said nothing about DEET a superior insect repellent. There is no way to tell if the banning DDT cause any net death or life.
Fact is no one can predict the future, So ultimately We have to act with the best of our knowledge. I do not see how enviromentalism is bad. I don't think religion is bad either. So I would say Micheal Crichton arguement was good but not effective. Did change anyone's opinions about anything? He spoke against religion and religious enviromentalism. I Doubt whether you had a positive or negative view of either it did not change

Blogger Media Tycoon said...
Being a religious person, I don't agree with Crichton's view of religion. However, I do agree that environmentalism has taken on many traits of traditional religion.

I don't know where you got the quote

"the best people, the most enlightened people---do not believe in any religion"

however, I wouldn't doubt he said it.

The problem with that quote is that by his own admission, many athiests subscribe to religions...just not traditional ones. For the most part, these include communism, socialism, and environmentalism.

Socialism and communism have done zero good in the world. communism killed 100 million people in the 20th century. SO frankly, Atheism doesn't exactly have that great of a track record.

Environmentalism has definitely helped the planet. No doubt about it. THe problem is that these people lie about how bad things are in order to gain money and power.

Al Gore said the world will end in 10 years because of our treatment of the enviroment. He is a fucking moron, and he does more harm than good.

I got the quote from the speech you linked to. It is in the fourth paragraph.

Anonymous halliburton said...
Obama, I think you misunderstood the quote.

It actually says:

"Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people---the best people, the most enlightened people---do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious."

He didn't say that he believed that the best and most enlightened people did not believe in religion.

He said that "Today IT IS SAID...BUT I THINK..."

He was merely stating a common belief among some of the population. And then he went on to say why he disagreed with that belief.

To Hallieburton,

I disagree with your analysis of the speech.
It is clear that Michael Crichton speech is critical of religion. His whole case against enviromentalism is that it fit the model of religion.
I will enumerate how he makes this his case

1. states society dilemma is distinguishing truth from propaganda

2. states similarities of religion and enviromentalism.

3. States this is a problem because religion is based on beliefs or fait rather than facts.

4. He conclude the way to fix enviromentalism is to take the religon out of it.

So your statement about the qoute "the best people, the most enlightened people---do not believe in any religion" Is wrong.

Halliburton said
"He was merely stating a common belief among some of the population. And then he went on to say why he disagreed with that belief"
What did he go on to say that disagreed with "the best people, the most enlightened-do not believe in any religion"?

Your logic is quite suspect to me.

Because if he was arguing that religious were enlighten i truly did misunderstand

Blogger Media Tycoon said...
"But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind."

That is from Crichton, and that basically kills your point.

However, your poind is different from Crichtons point.

The fact is, a lot of these environmentalists are religious fanatics. That is what Crichtons point is. We should not follow these people blindly. Unfortunately, their message is permeating science and distorting the facts. Let's hope we don't kill our economy for a religion that based on nonsense like "the tree is alive and it feels pain...it told me that just now."

I have seen videos of those freaks that stay up in trees saying stuff like that. They live in a land of make believe.

I would have no problem with their beliefs if they kept to themselves, but they insist on forcing their beliefs on everyone else and making it government policy.

Anonymous halliburton said...
I'm gonna be honest, I didn't read the whole speech until after your last comment, heh heh...

But what I got out of the speech was that environmentalism should not be treated as a religion. That's fine.

I don't agree with his statements that religion causes death, though. I think he should have held onto the term "fundamentalists" from the previous paragraph when he said that. Most of the time, when "religion" causes death, it's actually politics cloaked in religion. Much like the politics that we see today cloaked in environmentalism. By politics, I mean the desire for power and wealth.

Anyway, when he said:

"Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people---the best people, the most enlightened people---do not believe in any religion..."

I believe he was saying that contrary to what many people think, NOBODY is without religious beliefs. Some are in the form of worship to an all-powerful God and creator. Others (who call themselves atheists) choose the religion of environmentalism (or some other cause).

So in the end, I still can't justify your saying that "the best people, the most enlightened people---do not believe in any religion" is "his statement."

Because in reality, he was saying something totally different.

Anonymous halliburton said...
my last comment was directed to obama...

To Halliburton.
"And then he went on to say why he disagreed with that belief."

If you did not read the speech, How did you know what he went on to say?

I am sure Michael Crichton would agree with me, Get the facts before you state you opinion;

As for you disagreement with me saying "the best people, the most enlightened people- do not believe in any religion" is his comment.

He said it, it is in his speech. I think our real disagreement is in if this Michael Crichton agrees with this statement or not.

Through-out his speech he makes the point, the problem with enviromentalism is that people treat it as if it were a religion. he contiues to point out the flaws in religion from there. He says the solution is to "Take religion out of the sphere of enviromentalism"

So i would definatley say he agrees with his comment "the best people, the most enlihtened people- do not believe in any religion."

If you still believe that he did not make this comment, or he does not agree with this. Please support you conjecture with evidence. if he did not make the comment who did, who is it attributed to, he does believe people who believe in religion are enlighted because "insert citation" or something of that nature

Blogger Media Tycoon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Media Tycoon said...
"But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious."

That quote says it all.

He also says...

"I certainly don't want to talk anybody out of them, as I don't want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don't want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can't talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith."

His point is that religion, when personal and private is harmless and probably necessary. However, when religion becomes something that is enforced through public policy or masqueraded as a science, that is very dangerous.

He could be the biggest anti-religious bigot in the world and I would not care. It isn't relevant. What is relevant is the point he made regarding environmentalism and how they hurt science and public policy with their appeals to emotion that are based on faith and not science.

To Media Tycoon,
when you said that qoute 'But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind'

"basically kills your point."

Do you know what my point is?
I have consistently said Michael Crichton is castigating religion in this speech. If you don't think I have been consistent in this please reference my responses that made you think otherwise. Or what you think my point based on my responces.

You and halliburton seem to think that the phrase "But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind" is going contrary to the previous comment of enlightened people don't have religion. When that is not the case at all

The but i think phrase is a conjuction. where he joins to ideas, specifically enlightened people do not believe in religion to enviromentalism is a religion. thus his point enviromentalist are neither enlightened or the best people. Make sense right

If you don't believe me look up a grammtical conjunction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_conjunction.

I am sorry to have to go to such rudimentary details of grammar but it seems you two are having really hard time comprehending his speech.

After all Michael Crichton is an athiest. I think it makes sense that he would attack something by ecoriating religion.

where do get that if it is kept private it is harmless?

he is saying that you cannot argue something that is not based on facts. Thus you can argue that believes in global warming with facts, because that is not what there opinion is based on. That would make it a religious belief.

What good is religion if we have to keep it private anyway. the great comission " go thereforeth baptizing, in name of the father son and holy spirit"

Or reference Daniel who pray out in the open even if it were against God's commands

Are you saying we should keep religion to ourselves or endorses someone else that says that.

The fact is, a lot of these environmentalists are religious fanatics. That is what Crichtons point is. We should not follow these people blindly. Unfortunately, their message is permeating science and distorting the facts. Let's hope we don't kill our economy for a religion that based on nonsense like "the tree is alive and it feels pain...it told me that just now."

There are many very respectable and scientific people warning about global warming, you don't need to listen the "freaks". Can you be specific, as in a qoute or article, of what Al Gore has said that is scientifically unsound? and wwhat you think the proper scientific analysis is. After all that is Crichton wanted to just base our opinions on facts.

Blogger Media Tycoon said...
If you "cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind" then that means that everyone is religious.

He says why this is...

"you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious."

Assuming Crichton has meaning in his life, then by his own words, he is religous.

Personally, I dont even know what you are arguing about. The point of this post was environmentalism more than religion. I have posted on religion a lot if you browse through my past blogs...maybe its time for another one.

To me, part of what makes Crichtons message so powerful is that he is not a religious (at least not traditionally) man. We know that evangelical Christians don't believe in global warming, but for an athiest (i'm taking your word on this one...and i don't doubt its true) to come out against global warming from this angle is a very compelling message.

I dont care if he is antireligion or anti christian or antigravity. That isn't directly relavent.

Blogger Media Tycoon said...
as for the last part...i have written dozens of blogs on this subject. If you really want to know what i think, you should browse the other postings.

i even have a couple in there that could solve global warming if it was true and it were caused by humans pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

Anonymous halliburton said...
Obama,

My point was that you took the phrase out of context. And it's obvious.

If he was stating his own opinion, first of all, he wouldn't have started the sentence with "Today it is said..." Sentences that begin this way and are followed with a "but...." usually are used to precede a new or contradicting idea.

For example:

"It is said that power corrupts, but actually it's more true that power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power." - David Brin

or

"A picture, it is said, is worth a thousand words, but cannot a few well-spoken words convey as many pictures?" - Unknown

I could go on...

But beyond the sentence structure (which obviously indicates his intention not to be viewed as the original author of that statement), you can see by what he says that he doesn't agree with the statement.

The statement says basically that the best people are the people who have no religion.

But HE says that NOBODY is without religion.

So the idea that he thinks the best people have no religion makes no sense because he doesn't believe those people exist.

You're right, he doesn't attribute the statement to anyone in particular. WHO CARES? Obviously he thinks that it's a mainstream idea (hence the words "it is said")

In response to your question: "If you did not read the speech, How did you know what he went on to say?"

I read the rest of the paragraph that you picked the phrase out of. And I pasted the whole thing into my first comment. That's how I knew what he went on to say. I wasn't arguing with you about what his over-all message was. I was just saying that you took the phrase out of context and tried to make it appear that it was his belief.

You went on in your first comment to say why you thought he was wrong for believing that when you said:

"Other than nietschke, i really can't think any mainstream 'enlightened person' who was an atheist. In fact quite the opposite Newton, Einstein, Da vinci all believed in a God."

When, in fact, his point in that paragraph was not that the best people are without religion. It was that nobody is without religion. He was disagreeing with the statement himself.

If you were to say "Bush says there are WMDs in Iraq, but I think that Saddam Hussein destroyed his WMDs a long time ago" would you want me to tell someone that you said there were WMDs in Iraq? Of course not. You were mentioning someone else's opinion in order to show how your opinion differed from theirs.

That's what Crichton was doing here.

I can't believe you would ask me to "support [my] conjecture with evidence." I thought I did that in my very first comment when I posted the phrase in its context. The evidence was his words immediately following the statement where he very clearly says that, in his opinion, the statement HAS to be false because of the non-existance of people non-religious people.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree my friend.

I can see why you would say he is disagreeing with that comment, based on the context of the fourth context alone.

I just think that "but..religion is part of everybodies psyche" is a grammitical conjunction to the rest of the speech where he gives the impression that religion causes people to do irrational things.

I don't think either of us are going to change ourminds. So I guess we will have to chalk it up as an impasse

Links to this post:
Create a Link