The new religion

On Tuesday myself and others from the office went along to Waterstones at the LSE to listen to Lord Lawson of Blaby discuss his recent publication: An Appeal to Reason. It was an event that exposed both of the ugly sides of the debate surrounding climate change, but Lord Lawson remained above this and raised some valid points. Perhaps the most controversial was his argument that environmentalism was the new religion, and I believe that he may have identified a core reason for the appeal of climate change.

Over the past fifty years the number of people practicing religion within Western Europe has declined sharply. This has taken place simultaneously with a cultural shift away from independent/communal self-reliance, to expectations of state absolution which has left in its wake a moral vacuum. Lord Lawson argues that environmentalism has filled this vacuum. Over the past decade people have been more and more kowtowing to the potentially over-exaggerated catastrophic happenings that the climate change apostles have been disseminating. The continual doom sayings of these people have built up the idea that everyone is as culpable as next for the destruction of the planet, and that greatness is only attainable through a slavish and moralistic life dedicated to the cause of stopping climate change.

It is difficult to see much between the European interpretation of religion and environmentalism, save for the private/public disparity. The “New Religion” seeks to raise everyone’s guilt through the invasion of the private sphere, via public policy implementation; those that don’t follow the prescribed messages are seen as heretics. Despite living in the 21st Century, a time of religious liberty, it seems that we are rejecting scientific investigation and results out of hand, if it dare question other's beliefs. The invocation of politics to raise a section of science above all others, based on exaggerated scientific truths that tell of harrowing future terrors, is seemingly irrational in this day and age. Self-comfort can be found in many ways, but making others feel guilty via a comparison of actions is not progressive. It is no wonder Lord Lawson titled his book as he did.

Myself?:
written by Alleagra, July 29, 2008

No! Try checking out the use of 'myself'. Bang on with the content though.

the new religion.
written by alan, July 29, 2008

I believe he has a valid point. Just like the attraction of wearing the shirt of the football/rugby team they support has taken over from wearing the blazer, tie and badge of their regiment! People DO need something to follow. Hence the attraction towards gangs. It is quite native behaviour.

The move away from religion is not surprising when, especially in the Church of England, its priests do not believe in some or most of its teachings and they are far, far to obsessed with homosexuality nd women bishops than leading their flocks.

The Roman Catholics have lost their way. When the Pope has to go to country after country apologising for the crimes of its priests towrads children over so many years. Is it surprising that people are looking elsewhere.

The Chief Rabbi was spot on when he said people needed spiritual guidance but were not getting it!

Well done to Lord Lawson. The question is, when people realise that the Climate Change Religion is a phoney one and like the great lie of the twenties/thirties, will prove to have been a nonsense. Where will the people turn then?

People need to follow. To follow they need a leader! Look at Obama, people are flocking to him as if he is the new messiah, yet analyse what he is saying and it is just 'meaningless words'. The USA's Tony Blair, god forbid! People will follow and that is the great worry. All it needs is a charismatic person with a 'sexy' message and they will be followed.

That is why, incidentally, Gordon Brown is so disliked. He is no leader. But who, in our great country is there to follow?

There is a void and with that void a great danger.

...
written by David Brand, July 29, 2008

I think that you mean "prescribed", not "proscribed".

...
written by Steve Giess, July 29, 2008

It worth reiterating the point that many people still think that scientists are above worldly matters, such as Rent-Seeking.

It is heartening to read that quite a few economists recognise that this age-old phenomenon is still with us, even in the sciences.

...
written by Alasdair, July 29, 2008

As soon as they brought out Indulgences, re-styled as "Carbon Credits", they confirmed the Cult of Global Warming as a religion, not a science ...

Lawson a heretic, but not the heresiarch
written by Tom Papworth, July 31, 2008

"environmentalism was the new religion, and I believe that he may have identified a core reason for the appeal of climate change"

Well, the first part may be true, but the latter is definitely not. Deepak Lal, for one, has claimed that in both Revising the Invisible Hand and (the very similar) In Praise of Empires. I'm sure he was not the first.

What is more, it's hardly an insight: one need only consider the romanticism of nature worship and the City-of-God rhetoric to see that much of environmentalism's appeal comes from the New Age tradition.

It is, of course, entirely possible to approach environmental concerns rationally and scientifically. The problem with Lawson is that his aversion for the quasi-religious and often-misanthropic tendencies of many environmentalists has led him to reject all evidence of environmental threat. Like too many of those who believe in free markets, he allowed the fact that early-adopters of environmentalism were socialist in their leanings and so in their prescriptions to cloud his judgement about the whole subject.

What we need is not denial; it is a response to environmental threats that works with the grain of human freedom, rather than using it as a Trojan horse to reinvigorate discredited socialism.

Written by Steve Bettison
Tuesday, 29 July 2008
On Tuesday myself and others from the office went along to Waterstones at the LSE to listen to Lord Lawson of Blaby discuss his recent publication: An Appeal to Reason. It was an event that exposed both of the ugly sides of the debate surrounding climate change, but Lord Lawson remained above this and raised some valid points. Perhaps the most controversial was his argument that environmentalism was the new religion, and I believe that he may have identified a core reason for the appeal of climate change. Over the past fifty years the number of people practicing religion within Western Europe has declined sharply. This has taken place simultaneously with a cultural shift away from independent/communal self-reliance, to expectations of state absolution which has left in its wake a moral vacuum. Lord Lawson argues that environmentalism has filled this vacuum. Over the past decade people have been more and more kowtowing to the potentially over-exaggerated catastrophic happenings that the climate change apostles have been disseminating. The continual doom sayings of these people have built up the idea that everyone is as culpable as next for the destruction of the planet, and that greatness is only attainable through a slavish and moralistic life dedicated to the cause of stopping climate change. It is difficult to see much between the European interpretation of religion and environmentalism, save for the private/public disparity. The “New Religion” seeks to raise everyone’s guilt through the invasion of the private sphere, via public policy implementation; those that don’t follow the prescribed messages are seen as heretics. Despite living in the 21st Century, a time of religious liberty, it seems that we are rejecting scientific investigation and results out of hand, if it dare question other's beliefs. The invocation of politics to raise a section of science above all others, based on exaggerated scientific truths that tell of harrowing future terrors, is seemingly irrational in this day and age. Self-comfort can be found in many ways, but making others feel guilty via a comparison of actions is not progressive. It is no wonder Lord Lawson titled his book as he did. Bookmark Comments (6) Subscribe to this comment's feed Myself?: written by Alleagra, July 29, 2008 No! Try checking out the use of 'myself'. Bang on with the content though. the new religion. written by alan, July 29, 2008 I believe he has a valid point. Just like the attraction of wearing the shirt of the football/rugby team they support has taken over from wearing the blazer, tie and badge of their regiment! People DO need something to follow. Hence the attraction towards gangs. It is quite native behaviour. The move away from religion is not surprising when, especially in the Church of England, its priests do not believe in some or most of its teachings and they are far, far to obsessed with homosexuality nd women bishops than leading their flocks. The Roman Catholics have lost their way. When the Pope has to go to country after country apologising for the crimes of its priests towrads children over so many years. Is it surprising that people are looking elsewhere. The Chief Rabbi was spot on when he said people needed spiritual guidance but were not getting it! Well done to Lord Lawson. The question is, when people realise that the Climate Change Religion is a phoney one and like the great lie of the twenties/thirties, will prove to have been a nonsense. Where will the people turn then? People need to follow. To follow they need a leader! Look at Obama, people are flocking to him as if he is the new messiah, yet analyse what he is saying and it is just 'meaningless words'. The USA's Tony Blair, god forbid! People will follow and that is the great worry. All it needs is a charismatic person with a 'sexy' message and they will be followed. That is why, incidentally, Gordon Brown is so disliked. He is no leader. But who, in our great country is there to follow? There is a void and with that void a great danger. ... written by David Brand, July 29, 2008 I think that you mean "prescribed", not "proscribed". ... written by Steve Giess, July 29, 2008 It worth reiterating the point that many people still think that scientists are above worldly matters, such as Rent-Seeking. It is heartening to read that quite a few economists recognise that this age-old phenomenon is still with us, even in the sciences. ... written by Alasdair, July 29, 2008 As soon as they brought out Indulgences, re-styled as "Carbon Credits", they confirmed the Cult of Global Warming as a religion, not a science ... Lawson a heretic, but not the heresiarch written by Tom Papworth, July 31, 2008 "environmentalism was the new religion, and I believe that he may have identified a core reason for the appeal of climate change" Well, the first part may be true, but the latter is definitely not. Deepak Lal, for one, has claimed that in both Revising the Invisible Hand and (the very similar) In Praise of Empires. I'm sure he was not the first. What is more, it's hardly an insight: one need only consider the romanticism of nature worship and the City-of-God rhetoric to see that much of environmentalism's appeal comes from the New Age tradition. It is, of course, entirely possible to approach environmental concerns rationally and scientifically. The problem with Lawson is that his aversion for the quasi-religious and often-misanthropic tendencies of many environmentalists has led him to reject all evidence of environmental threat. Like too many of those who believe in free markets, he allowed the fact that early-adopters of environmentalism were socialist in their leanings and so in their prescriptions to cloud his judgement about the whole subject. What we need is not denial; it is a response to environmental threats that works with the grain of human freedom, rather than using it as a Trojan horse to reinvigorate discredited socialism. Write comment This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment. Powered by Azrul's Jom Comment for Joomla!