<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Faith in Nature
Review: First of all, Dunlap does not approach this necessarily from an "anti-environmental" viewpoint, (nor does he seem to have any radical agenda) but from a (limited) historical and cultural perspective. Dunlap uses William James's definition of religion (and the Hebrew Thought approach), though Websters defines religion as:
1) man's expression of his his acknowledgment of the divine; or
2) a system of beliefs and practices relating to the sacred and uniting its adherents in a community; or3) something which has a powerful hold on a person's way of thinking, interests, etc. (is beer my religion?) To Dunlap, "religion is how we make (ultimate) sense of our lives in the context of the universe", and he seems to support the possibility that any ideology or world-view can be thought of, and even benefit from, a religious approach. He uses sources from his own (devout) Catholic background to selectively define words such as "spirituality" (why not just use the dictionary), and litters the text with loaded language (preach, spirit, scripture, sacred, beliefs, etc.) that does nothing to justify assertions (because they can be inserted in critique of any ideology, movement or cause). For example, without adequate explanation or clarification, he says "people hung prints (of Ansel Adams)....in much the same spirit and...fervor as immigrant Catholics placing the Sacred Heart of Jesus..." (why was it similar, and why is this different than hanging a picture of MLK, or any other "honored" person, place, or thing), and states that action was needed to incorporate a quest for "scriptures" that expressed (environmentalism's) deepest convictions (as if there was a call to an environmental saint to write it all down). To his credit, he uses numerous endnotes, quotes, and references (though many are dubious in relationship to what environmentalism really "seeks" or how they support any but the broadest assertion). As a limited historical documentation on the origins of the American environmental movement alone, this often disjointed account might be worth a read, and a few valid "similarities" between religiosity and environmentalism are presented; however, the fundamental assertion that "environmentalism is a religion" is not backed up by any significant compelling evidence (perhaps only if one is *very* loose with what constitutes religion). In his flawed analysis, Dunlap subscribes to notions such as "faith in science", a "Marxist faith", and even says that Steven J. Gould (among others) "argues" that "science is all we need", something that was certainly not SJG's position at all. He states that there was the need for an "environmental myth" (to form a coherent vision to counter incompatible modern environmental enlightenment and blind consumptivism, and because of some of the movements failures) that was played out by things such as exclamations about our bodies feeding the earth's cycles, the Good of saving the plant, and Evil destruction of nature's processes. In short, his knowledge of American environmental history is deep, while his conclusions are forced. He asserts that environmentalists seek to answer ethical/moral questions (OK), and environmentalism is a religion because:
-*certain people* involved in the movement *have used* religious terminology;
-*some* view wilderness (as a state or place) as sacred, and the real connection (ecological, evolutionary, etc.) we actually have to the natural world is manifested in some as a "spiritual" connection;
-some seek to evangelically educate people and influence public behavior to change habits known to be detrimental to the biosphere; and
-most say humans are not the only important thing on the planet, and challenge anthropocentric assumptions. Apparently to Dunlap, all of these "ideas", and more, prove that environmentalism seeks to find answers to basic religious questions (we came from and are a part of the earth), holds a belief in the sacred (i.e. wilderness as a temple) that results in worship of nature (road trip in the fall to "wild" New Hampshire to pray before the multi-colored maples), and tries to "convert" those that don't agree. Worst of all, the book is "Amerocentric" in it's focus (barely touching on Europe and nothing about any other part of the world where environmentalism is a significant force), glosses over such fundamental complex issues such as those apparently confused religious environmentalists (Buddhists, Native Americans, Rev. John: Greenpeace member), fails to provide a coherent explanation as to what prayers, ceremonies, codes, scriptures, etc (all basic to any religion) Environmentalism as religion is based around, and does not even discuss his fundamental assumption (or methodology in religious analysis) as to why Marxism, science, atheism, capitalism, (ad infantum) may also be viewed on as religions (because this is critical to the analysis and his conclutions). Though the book is pretty flawed and jumps around quite a bit, it's worth a read for anyone interested in religion, philosophy, and/or environmentalism.
Rating:
Summary: Everything is a Religion
Review: Though the book is pretty flawed and jumps around quite a bit, it's worth a read for anyone interested in religion, philosophy, and/or environmentalism.
<< 1 >>
| 
