I honestly don't know whether to laugh or cry over this post by Robbie at The Malcontent. The subtext here, of course, is that any important issue that the right would rather ignore is a "secular religion," which itself is almost an oxymoron (I say almost because Joseph W. Campbell quite convincingly cast communism as practiced in the Soviet Union as a religion, and there is, of course, the unswerving adulation in some quarters shown to God's Vicar on Earth, the Preznit). It's largely one more example of trying to cast the fringes as the core. The biggest mistake, of course, is using Camille Paglia as validation. (For some reason, she seems to be coming up a lot lately. She must have said something remarkably incoherent publicly. The quote Robbie uses is actually hysterically funny almost from the very beginning, not to mention awesomely pretentious.)
The problem with this stance is simply that global warming is a trend supported by observed fact. Religion is not supported by observed fact. That's fine. The problem is in trying to use the same criteria to define the two.
So, we start with the multiple meanings of "belief," throw in a couple of red herrings ("The earth has always had cycles of warming and cooling"), a couple of ad hominem arguments ('secular religion"), and a couple of anecdotes just to fuzz the issue a bit ("It snowed in D.C.!") and presto! You've debunked your opponents once again.
Not.
Please note that I'm not arguing the merits of global warming as a phenomenon, so I'm not going to address the substance (such as it is) of Robbie's (or Paglia's) arguments. It seems to me, however, that if most scientists agree that the tempo of events is alarming, then we should pay attention -- getting scientists to agree on something is roughly analogous to herding cats, despite what you've heard from the creationist/ID lobby. (And there's an interesting exercise in cognitive dissonance which seems to carry over into any discussion of science on the hyper-right: on the one hand, [insert favorite scientific theory here] is the creed of a monolithic orthodoxy foisted on an unsuspecting [and by definition God-fearing] public by a vast atheistic, anti-American conspiracy; on the other hand, there is disagreement over details of mechanisms, so that disproves the theory. You figure it out. I'm just taking it as bullshit.)
Sure, these days there's an element of ideology in any discussion of science. These days, there's an element of ideology in any discussion of anything. The unfortunate part is that most people are so sunk in their ideology that they can't see outside it, including Camille Paglia, who distrusts any dogma but her own.
I had really expected better. Sort of.
Update:
As another example of the kind of "missing the point" I mean (and I have a harder and harder time believing it's not deliberate), here's a post from Bob Geiger on Bush's handling of the stem cell research issue. Geiger very adroitly (well, OK, not so adroitly -- it sicks out like a sore thumb) reduces the "religious leaders, bio-ethicists and scientists" with whom Bush consulted way back when to "religious leaders" and manages to create a pretty much unjustified diatribe on Bush's position on stem cell research.
I don't agree with Bush's position myself, but I can certainly see why he'd be consulting with religious leaders (if he found some real ones and not just a bunch of politicians hiding behind Bibles) on an issue that has many in a moral quandary. I mean, even the Deciderer has to get feedback from someone, sometimes, particularly since he seems to have no moral sense himself.
Let's keep the arguments honest, guys
2 comments:
Well, it's disappointing you need to erect an army of strawmen to address the point, then throw in a lot of things that have nothing to do with my post as if they're closely related.
I'm critical of current global warming theory. That doesn't mean I don't think the earth is getting warmer - surely it is. It also doesn't mean just because there's something very off about the theory and its supporters that we should simply ignore pollution. I go out of my way both in the post and comments to state that pollution and the environment are important issues that deserve our attention whether or not the "humans are causing most of the global warming" theory is valid.
My main point is that, like religion, current global warming theory is rapidly becoming an orthodoxy immune to criticism. The idea behind science is to create a theory and then try to disprove it. If it cannot be disproven, it's a solid theory. However, the approach to global warming is exactly backwards. Some scientists crafted a theory, and anything that supports it is automatically deemed valid, and anything that punches holes in it or criticizes it is automatically dismissed.
That's not science. That's how religion functions.
The reflexive "The Right this, and conservatives that" response on your end is amusingly similar to what you critique in everyone else.
I really don't know how to break this to you: it's not about you. It's not even about Camille Paglia. It's about specious arguments and fuzzy definitions. I did, after all, note quite specifically that I wasn't addressing global warming itself, about which I don't know enough to comment intelligently.
You did characterize "global warming theory" (whatever that is) as a "secular religion." That's a standard right-wing label used to misrepresent any widely acknowledged idea not favored by -- may I use the term? -- the "right-wing agenda:" evolution, science in general, rational thought, our justice system. Whatever the speakers happen to hate at the moment is "an orthodoxy," a "monolithic conspiracy," "atheistic," and, indubitably, "anti-American." Hence my comments about that. (Let's face it, the term itself is an oxymoron.)
Frankly, I flatly dispute your contention that global warming theory is becoming an orthodoxy. Scepticism is fine -- that's what science and any rational approach to the world run on. There is a point, however, at which scepticism becomes denial. Unlike Ms. Paglia, I am not so dismissive of the urgency of the problem: we don't have a hundred years before it's a disaster. It's more like a generation. We have enough consensus that I think we're justified in taking steps. This paranoid fantasy about the environmentalists, climatologists, the UN, and all those other well-known totalitarians stifling dissent is just that -- paranoid and fantastic.
You then are "amused" by my "reflexive" reaction, which is, of course, no such thing: unlike your characterization of global warming, my comment can be backed up with many, many examples. Just as one example, the "religion" tag has been used to defend creationism at trial: the attempt was made to characterize evolutionary theory as a "religion" in fundamentally the same terms you used in your discussion of global warming and environmentalism. It was promptly laughed out of court. You're more than welcome to provide examples of liberals and other left-wingers characterizing science as a "secular religion."
The point being, when all is said and done, that this kind of argument is a standard on the right. It's simply another attempt to misrepresent what is actually going on. If you object to being lumped with that group, stop using their methods.
Post a Comment