The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Syndicate contentRSS

Vatican criticises Avatar

Ecology is not a religion, warns the Holy See

James Cameron's new film, Avatar, may be breaking box-office records, but the Vatican is not impressed -- or amused. The Holy See's newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, has called it "bland" and "facile", while its radio station claimed that the 3-D spectacular was "a wink towards the pseudo-doctrines which have made ecology the religion of the millennium . . . Nature is no longer a creation to defend, but a divinity to worship."

The comment comes just days after the Pope publicly criticised world leaders for failing to agree a treaty at the Copenhagen climate summit. "To cultivate peace, one must protect creation," he said. But he has also warned before against "a new pantheism tinged with neo-paganism, which would see the source of man's salvation in nature alone, understood in purely naturalistic terms".

I agree with the Pope that "being green" has gone way beyond a general duty to take reasonable care of our environment. For many, it now has a moral authority that allows them to feel no qualms about aggressively berating others for flying off somewhere warm on holiday, for driving a large car, or for buying non-locally produced fruit, let alone committing an act as heinous as eating shark's fin soup -- never mind that it is a dish whose popularity dates back to the days of the Ming Dynasty (though I've always found it pretty tasteless, myself).

Most green fanatics would argue ferociously that they base their views on science and the facts, but the force with which they communicate these views puts their zeal beyond mere reason. It is another example of the void left when religion is removed from society being filled by a certainty just as powerful as any belief in God. As I wrote in the NS nearly two years ago:

How else to explain the new religions that we have created for ourselves? A religion of science, whose priests make proclamations imbued with a certainty that their empirical branch of learning cannot justify; a religion of rights which, however much we may instinctively agree with it, has no more coherent proof than that it is "self-evident"; and now, perhaps, a religion of ecology whose ministers thunder as self-righteously as any 17th-century Puritan preacher.

Not that greenies would ever admit to their views being anything akin to a faith, though, so the Pope's ideas of pantheism and neo-paganism will not be publicly embraced, even if the accusation is valid. That may be a shame -- as most of the pagans, pantheists and animists I've come across are considerably more relaxed and less sententious than those greens who give the impression that they won't be satisfied until all the advances of the past two centuries have been wiped out by environmental doom.

As a recent IPPR report found, that kind of attitude is beginning to backfire quite disastrously with a public fed up with being lectured all the time. Perhaps they should remember the words of G K Chesterton? "It is always the secure who are humble."

 

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter

26 comments

Chris's picture

The "public" may be "fed up with being lectured all the time" - aren't "greenies" members of the public? - but most people have never taken any notice and haven't changed their behaviour, so I'm not really sure what the point of this article is, other than yet more green-bashing. And eating shark fin soup may date back to the MIng Dynasty, but that doesn't mean that people can't find something else to eat now that we know just how cruel it is to hack off sharks' fins and leave them to drown in the sea - and that sharks are now becoming endangered.

And your claim that environmentalism is filling some kind of void now that fewer people believe in a god is rather defensive, but it's probably pointless trying to argue with you, judging by the biased language in and aggressive tone of this article.

Daniele1's picture

Mick S Cunningham:
No not all the horrors of the world come from the Catholic church obviously. Who said that?
But it is the Pope and religion who keep Africa in the grip of ignorance and religious hysteria as I do hold the Christian churches responsible for the persecution of the so-called witch children in Nigeria. They infected people's mind with Christian superstition which, mingled with the original animist religion, has produced a deadly cocktail of collective religious madness which is leading to atrocities committed against children.
The Catholic church is also responsible for the spread of aids in the world as well as the overpopulation of the planet by preaching against contraception and spreading lies about the use of condoms.I could go on.
Anyway, thank YOU for demonstrating, through your hysterical rant, how irrational and ignorant a religious mind can be.

Mike's picture

Wake up to reality indeed. Perhaps some of our Christian friends could start with a careful reading of their own Bible, beginning with Deuteronomy, Ch.20, where God orders the Israelites to commit what we today would call genocide: "thou shalt leave none alive that breatheth." In fact the entire O.T. is essentially an attempt to justify the Israelites' invasion of Canaan and the slaughter and enslavement of its people. "Yes, we murdered all those people but it's ok because God told us to do it, and we're God's chosen people."

And the N.T. isn't much better; it's basically a ruler's charter. The essential message there is "don't ask questions, follow the rules, believe what we tell you, obey those whom it has pleased God to place in authority over you, and God will reward you in Heaven - after you die"

Not a promise I'd put much trust in.

Mike's picture

"Stop talking" is just a slightly less rude way of saying "shut up". I don't react well to rudeness so I will NOT shut up.

If you don't follow your thousands-of-years-old scriptures, what do you follow? Do you just pick out the bits you like and trash the rest? (I know some people who would be very annoyed at you for doing that; some of then are even Catholics). Then what's the point of having scripures at all if you don't follow most of what they say?

My argument isn't with Caholics per se (some of the finest people of my acquaintance have been Catholics); just with the aforementioned mindless drones and hypocrites who have used religion as an excuse for committing all manner of atrocities, from genocide to child rape to the execution of heretics, scientists and freethinkers. None of the "organised" religions - catholicism, protestantism, judaeism, islam, hinduism, are exempt from these charges; all have committed acts of mindless, stupid brutality. All things considered, we humans would be better off with no religion at all.

Piers Cadell's picture

I've never heard such nonsense. The comments here show that we are heading into the dark ages again! All you are doing is fitting reality to suit. You need to get out more. And if you are going to study history, try going a bit beyond tabloid pseudo-intellectualism.

Does anyone have anything to say that they actually know about?? Over-generalisations and opinion forming comments make me puke.

Piers Cadell's picture

Cultural imperialism? Try the contraceptive mentality of the West for starters, ending with a new form of totalitarianism.

Daniele1's picture

Piers Cadell:
What is your problem? If we are all talking nonsense here please enlighten us with your knowledge and wisdom. Can't wait for your precious and informed views.
Why don't you tell us what you think, instead of pouring contempt on everyone.
By the way your second comment makes no sense at all. We thickies need more explanations.

AdrianCruden's picture

To Peter Brown and his assertion that the Catholic Church has supported science throughout its history. Sorry but not so. Right from Saint Paul onwards the Christians were at odds with rationalism, decrying the Hellenic philosophers : "The more they called themselves philosophers, the more stupid they grew" (Romans 1:21) and "The wisdom of the world is foolishness to God." (Corinthians 11:25). By the fifth and sixth centuries, this had led to the outlawing of paganism and the closure of the schools of philosophy, even including the Academy of Plato, who some early Christian writers had something of a sfot spot for with his belief in Ideal Forms. The Church crushed independent thought and enquiry: Philastrius fulminated against any suggestion earthquakes happen "not from God's command, but from the very nature of the elements." Basil of Cappadocia urged Christians to "prefer the simplicity of our faith to the demonstrations of human reason." And Lactantius wrote, heartbreakingly, "What purpose does knowledge serve - for as to knowledge of natural causes, what blessing is ther for me if I should know where the Nile rises, or whatever else under the heavens the "scientists" rave about?"

And perhaps most chilling of all, from Basil also came advice with a warning: "It should be enough for you to know that there is a good shepherd who gave his soul for his sheep. The knowledge of God is comprised within these limits. How big God is, what His limits are and of what essence He is, such questions are dangerous on the part of the interrogator; they should be taken care of with silence."

And so faith replaced reason, miracles replaced medicine, and were it not for first the Byzantine scholars of Constantinople and then the Alexandrian and Moorish Arab scholars, a millenium of philosophic and scientific progress would have been lost to humanity. The Dark Ages were not dark because of the arrival of Germanic "barbarians" in the Roman Empire - it was because the Catholic Church established a monopoly on belief and political power. It was only when socio-economic and political pressures from outside the faith broke down its walls in the 16th century that reason began to re-establish itself, challenged almost every step of the way by the Church. It is a tragedy to humanity and the world: and the Papal fulmination against environmentalism shows how little, other than the secular power of the Church, has actually changed.

Daniele1's picture

A BIG THANK YOU to you AdrienCruden for this thorough and detailed historical account of the evil effects of the Catholic church had on scientific research and scientists.
And like he says it looks as if today's church carries on with its tradition of attempting to stifle the truth and its hate of science.
Environmentalists it appears are the new heretics! If they could, they would tie them all on the stake and burn them.
Thank God (!)today, most of the world (unfortunately not all) ignores what the Pope has to say.

Steffan's picture

Fear of Competition?

Daniele1's picture

I welcome a return to the "old religion".At least paganism is harmless, give or take a few human sacrifices, as opposed to the Catholic Church which has brought untold misery in the world for centuries.
And I am sick and tired of hearing people call Science or Ecology new religions. They are the OPPOSITE of religion. It is not because there are a few environmentalist fanatics that their convictions constitute a religion.No one would suggest that certain political views constitute a religion. Why Science? There is a semantic confusion here. Somebody should check again the meaning of the word :"religion".Last time I checked you needed a god or gods, some supernatural being(s), for beliefs to be religious beliefs.
Therefore the article above is full of utter nonsense. Sorry Sholto.

ExplodingBadger's picture

While science is very useful it does have some similarities with religion. For exampple we have to take everything science on faith because are unable to verify it ourselves.

The green movement is based on science and something else called morality. Is is moral to eat shark fins soup ? It seems to be catching an animal cutting off its fin and thowing it back in the water to a painful death is immoral. You can see the results here:

http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=shark%20finning&um=1...

It doesn't matter how long something has been going on if its wrong. We don't think its ok to circumsize women just because it has been going on for a long time and I don't see why the cruel treatment of animals should continue for this reason either.

ExplodingBadger's picture

I forgot to mention many finned species of shark are dying out due to finning:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN1560772220080217

kristlegauldin675's picture

"never mind that it is a dish whose popularity dates back to the days of the Ming Dynasty"

Your reasoning throughout this article is weak. The fact that people have done something for a long time does make it valid.

As Daniele said, your comments about the "greenies" are similarly flawed and built upon lazy generalisation. It is fallacious to suggest that eco-fundies are equivalent to god-fundies. Certainly, some people who think in simple religious and ideological terms fill the existential "void" by becoming energised over other things but it is not the same as believing in something that is impossible to prove.

I welcome the moral objectivism shown by people "berating" others over things such as driving excessively phallic cars. We should welcome the argument and be informed by it - when we become defensive it exposes the insecurity that comes with the lackluster personal examination of a particular issue.

Boris Balkan's picture

Educate yourself!
http://www.lacan.com/zizecology1.htm

Peter Brown's picture

Some of you who have made comments really need to discern history better. '..The Catholic Church..has brought untold misery in the world for centuries'? Really? I thought it had fundamentally supported science throughout history (Galileo being the only unfortunate glitch but certainly not Catholic in its pronounement; the BIg Bang theory discovered by a Catholic Priest! e.g.), crerated a society that beleives in education, taught sound ethics, possess the second larges charity (Caritas) outside the UN, has an outstanding record in environmental issues, creates world unity through Jesus Christ. 'Untold misery? Only an agressive atheist has this to say! WAKE UP TO REALITY!

RFM's picture

I do like the fact that Byrnes, in trying to put down the virtues of environmentalism based on science, equates it to religion. Is he suggesting that James Lovelock is in the mind of environmentalists the new high priest of Gaia? Surely, not. But if we are not to rely on science for our opinions on the state of the earth, what shall we rely on? And there is the problem, it is of little use to criticise the foundation of our opinions when what the author really has a problem with is our attitudes about those who don't share our convictions. That is not the fault of science, scientists, or planet earth, that is a failure of human reason. Perhaps that failure would have been a better target than science, not so?

As for all the virtues of the Catholic Church and it's unity through Jesus Christ, tell that to the Aztecs, if you can find them. Alternatively, I will be open to a lecture on what the Catholic Church did to protect the pre-Columbian pagans from the post-Columbian Christians.

Colin's picture

There's a lot I could say, but let's take a look at the 'people get angry about the environment' dig. I don't get angry about the climate change problem because it is my religion or connected to any beliefs I hold. I get angry because I have taken time and energy to try and follow the science and I have concluded that there is little room for doubt. So when people ignore this evidence and continue with a selfish lifestyle - unnecessary plane and car journeys, high beef and dairy diets, central heating a 24 degrees so they can walk about in a t-shirt in January - then I get angry. Perfectly rational response to a very real threat posed by them to myself and my family. Disagree with me if you like but don't try and tell me I am being irrational.

Mick S Cunningham's picture

To AdrianCruden et al,

It is popular to bash the church, and the anti-christian media ensures a daily dripfeed of ammo for the likes of you (and the general public). No, you are not thinking for yourself.

If you were, you might see that it is only Religion, and perhaps your Mum, that teaches good ethics.

Ask yourself: is it the Pope and Religion that is behind our bombing of mud houses in Afghanistan and Iraq from six miles up (or is it the greed of the Merchants of oil?)? Is it Religion that keeps the Palistinians walled-up (or is it the Greed of landgrabbers and the Merchants of Zionism)? Is it Religion that promotes our bloated western diet (or the greed of a monstrous food industry)?

You hold the trite views of a person who's never know hunger in his family, unlike the families of the 50,000 who die each day from poverty.

The majority of the world clings to religion because it is a comfort. They don't need the analytics of a cold, prissy theorist like yourself because You, and your ilk, and the West and Israel, are fat, greedy swine.

When the anti-Christian media have finished stripping you of religion, you'll no longer protest at their bombing of mudhuts from six miles up, the mistreatment of Palistinians and their families, and the foisting of mad science on our farming.

Honest to God, isn't everything in the West now tainted?

Piers Cadell's picture

Mike, in response to "all things considered, we humans would be better off with no religion at all".

Firstly, to think that you have considered all things, you must be practising the religion of individualism.

Secondly, since it is interesting to agree with you as much as I can, because this is part of my religion, I would like to remind you that when you try to remove something as fundamental to humans as religion seems to be according to any study of the history of humans, then you will not be left with NO religion, but with pseudo-religion.

In other words, precisely because humans are not very good at religion, they need to be exposed to the possibility of discovering the best of human religion.

That is precisely why the Catholic Church is so keen on saints as a help in defining the best of religion. And I have to say, it works for me.

St. Therese of Lisieux, Doctor of the Church, please bless all those who visit these pages!

Daniele1's picture

Peter Brown:
I find really rich that you are telling ME to wake up to reality!! "The Catholic church has supported Science throughout history" Is this a joke ? Scores of scientists were persecuted by the Church throughout Europe for centuries.( and Galileo was certainly NOT "a Glitch") As to the moral standing of the Church, how about the lovely institution of the Inquisition which murdered thousands of innocent people the again through centuries and throughout Europe.
And like RFM reminds us, this is not to mention the destruction of ancient civilisation such as the Incas, Aztecs etc.. What is consistent with the Catholic Church throughout history is the systematic persecution of anyone who did not believe or anyone who challenged the authority of the Pope, and anyone who had a different world view ie. the scientists.People died at the stake for maintaining that the Earth was not flat, for Goodness sake! Science was the worst news for any system of irrational beliefs and scientists were heretics who had to be eliminated.
Today you have the scandal of the Catholic priests in the USA and Ireland who abused children for decades and got away with it because the Church hierarchy was protecting them.
YOU wake up Peter Brown and start reading some history and stop patronising people on this site.
Your aggressive atheist.

Piers Cadell's picture

Fair point Daniele!

Thanks for spotting my circular arguments! What I mean is that if we think we can solve problems that are based on relationships with bits of rubber and abortion, then we are likely to end up deciding that everything is relative and start killing each other according to one form of utilitarianism or another,instead of getting to grips with truly respecting one another, thereby causing untold suffering.

I saw the film and enjoyed it, but it was a bit creepy.

Leith's picture

I'm a Melkite Catholic and a Qualified Medical scientist. I think everyone ranting on about this topic needs to begin looking at both sides of the story.

Yes the Catholic church has alot to answer for, but so does every other religion and every other corporation and institution on earth. I find it amusing that people choose to point fingers all day when dispair happens all around us from all corners.

On the topic of abortions, as a healthcare technician and having thorough knowledge on cells and conception. Whilst i may be looking at a cluster of cells, i still respect the fact that its a life of its own. The catholic church doesn't just make judgements based on the bible, they are well educated people who are informed before releasing publications and decisions to the masses.

To the person who stated that overpopulation and Aids was the Catholic Churches fault, you lost the respect of anyone in this room by that very idiotic comment. Aids is spread by sex with someone that is infected by Aids, nothing else. Overpopulation is being caused mainly by the Hindu and Muslim faiths. Catholicism is on the downward trend, these other two faiths are on the rise simply because of their members producing large families. Get your facts right please before spewing out garbage like that.

Whilst i think science should progress forward, i think they should respect human life whilst doing so, that lack of respect is going to be the end of us all.

To the person quoting scripture from thousands of years ago, please stop talking. You make the assumption that we all follow every word of the bible without thinking for ourselves. Stop making catholics out to be mindless drones following every word fed to them. The majority of catholics spread the good word, not the bad.

Much like science proves to disprove themselves in the sake of progress; the church and its followers argue against its own doctrines all the time for the sake of better social morality.

To the people pointing fingers about the priests who have molested young children. This is a major embarassment of the Catholic church, but here is the difference how aften does this happen in other faiths (not naming names) and it is not only pro

I still think catholicism has spread more love and compassion than pain and death ever in its existence. I also think science has helped billions towards a better life, but both need to learn to work together and respect each other before leap frogging themselves into the future.

elchileno's picture

If I were religiouly inclined, I would much rather worship the sun, or the moon, or trees, which actually give us life. But I'm sure humanity would find a way to fight over whether we worship the rising sun, or the setting sun, or some such thing, anyway.

Pagan Artist's picture

What is wrong with worshipping God's creation itself?

The sun, the moon, the stars, the air, the trees, the rivers, the sea -- we cannot live for a day without them.

For me, that makes them divine because they give us the ultimate gift of life. Organised religions on the other hand have given us nothing but death and destruction.

Nature gives us life. Organised religions give us death. Which one should we hold divine and worshhip with reverence?

dan's picture

Quote: "A religion of science, whose priests make proclamations imbued with a certainty that their empirical branch of learning cannot justify; a religion of rights which, however much we may instinctively agree with it, has no more coherent proof than that it is "self-evident"...."

What I gathered from this statement is that the author claims science has no evidence to back up what they release to the public and thus we should all ignore those conclusions.

Google Scholar. Look up any scientific publication on any topic. The evidence is publicly available.

Also, scientific conclusions are put up to the scrutiny of the community, making it a far more democratic, reliable, and involved process than the end-all that is evangelism.

People are brainwashed. Some are brainwashed to be "green", even though they don't know exactly what it means. Some are brainwashed to believe in God, even though they don't know exactly what it means.

Latest tweets