We’ve observed on several occasions that modern environmentalism is more akin to religion – a cult, really – than science. Many others have done the same, including Michael Crichton in his now-famous Commonwealth Club speech in 2003.
While Crichton analogized environmentalism to the Genesis creation story of perfection, fall and redemption, I think he was only partially correct about Genesis. Being trained in anthropology but not theology, Crichton would have recognized the religious aspect but not the type of religion at work in environmentalism, which – as Crichton acknowledges – is the quintessential Western religious expression in a “post-Christian” world.
In my opinion, the type of religious expression at work – and which reinterprets the Genesis story at will – is Gnosticism, an ancient parasitic religion that’s used both Christianity and Judaism as a host organism throughout history. Whenever either religion’s orthodox base weakens, gnosticism flourishes like a rank grown. And theological ideas have cultural and intellectual consequences.
Orthodox Christianity and Judaism are both based on the Bible and the Bible as literally understood presents a world-view that is unfailingly objective. It says that God exists, men and women can know him and that creation – including humanity’s physical existence – is real, good and and can be ascertained both by our senses and our reason.
In fact, it’s not a stretch to say that the Genesis creation story provides the intellectual basis of modern science, which will no doubt come as a shock to many scientists. The reason is simple: Genesis portrays creation – the universe, earth and all plants and animals – not as imbued with divinity but as objects created by – but separate from – the Creator. Being objectively other, the universe and everything in it are not mystical beings but subjects for our study. In a word, the Bible demystified the physical world. Enter objective science, which pursues reproducible results via experimental methods.
By contrast, the Gnostics (from the Greek gnosis, to know) lay claim to hidden knowledge that only they possess. This knowledge comes not from external reality, but from within themselves. Particularly during its formative stages, Christian orthodoxy fought protracted battles with various Gnostic sects that differed in particulars but were united around key assertions at variance with orthodoxy.
First, Gnostics rejected the objective nature of the world, believing that our material environment is merely a defective representation of some more perfect reality. Gnostics therefore reject – in Eric Voegelin’s phrase – the “ground of being” itself, believing that they can create a new reality derived from their own subjective consciousness. Those who cling to the simple-minded notion that the ground of being consists of what we can see, touch and taste are unenlightened and do not live in the light.
Second, having rejected the ground of being, Gnostics seek to construct a new reality greatly at variance with conventional reason or our physical existence. Theirs is a protean utopia in which there is no natural law, only ever-plastic social constructs to be molded at will by the force of their own heightened subjectivity. Being essentially gnostic, modern leftist movements from Positivism to Marxism create their own authority and accept as a matter of duty the necessity of coercing the unenlightened.
Third, there is no discipline or authority the Gnostic accepts and none they are not willing to undermine in their quest to construct a substitute ground of being. Therefore, science does not exist to uncover truth from the physical world – such a pursuit is, after all, unenlightened and altogether too prosaic for the gnostic mind. Rather, science exists to provide necessary justification for the substitute ground of being they seek to construct. Scientific integrity means nothing in view of such a quest.
Fourth, Gnostics tend to be filled with grievance against a defective world into which they’ve been flung and from which they seek to escape. Theirs is an uncomfortable quest to create a strange and subjective utopia out of a world that is fundamentally deformed and unjust. This is why Gnostics believe it’s their duty to undermine, overthrow and destroy every estate and convention. After all, estates and conventions are merely reminders of an existence from which they recoil. Like Saul Alinsky today, ancient Gnostics idolized the serpent in Genesis as the purveyor of higher knowledge while excoriating the God who would prevent humanity from receiving it. One ancient Gnostic writer railed against such a despicable God:
But what sort is this God? First he maliciously refused Adam from eating of the tree of knowledge, and, secondly, he said “Adam, where are you?” God does not have foreknowledge? Would he not know from the beginning? And afterwards, he said, “Let us cast him out of this place, lest he eat of the tree of life and live forever.” Surely, he has shown himself to be a malicious grudger! And what kind of God is this? For great is the blindness of those who read, and they did not know him.
Finally, as we would expect, Gnostics usually lack humility. After all, if you’re enlightened then the masses must therefore be unenlightened. Such people – including those who expect science to be objective – are objects of pity who must be perfected – by force if necessary. The Gnostic owes no explanation to such simpletons.
Watch carefully as our latter-day Gnostics ignore science, history, experience and natural law in the pursuit of their own alternative reality. Their anger and sense of cosmic entitlement make them dangerous people indeed.
More on climategate and religion by Wretchard at the Belmont Club.
