Environmentalism and Epistemology

Trey Givens has a good thread happening on Environmentalism. The most interesting aspect of the discussion for me is the relationship between environmentalism and religion.

Religion, it is noted, begins with claims of the supernatural, and with exhortations of faith. As such, its claims are wholly outside of reality, and can be dismissed out of hand. Everyone in the discussion seems agreed on this point. However, the status of environmentalism is not so clear. "Deep Greens," as they are being called (a term I like and shall keep), use concepts with which we are familiar to make false or unsubstantiated claims. Aren't they on the surface "better" than religionists, since some part of their claims is within reality?

In Trey's words: "I pointed out that there is a fundamental difference between the global climate and the supernatural, one exists and one does not."

I think we should be careful of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy here. One could re-structure Trey's argument to say that "Religionists claims are analytically false, but environmentalists claims are synthetically false," meaning that religionists' claims are essentially non-logical and self-contradiction, but environmentalists' claims require further study.

Environmentalists' claims do not require further study. Once it has been demonstrated that the environmentalist is making claims in an evidentiary vacuum, that is enough of a reason to dismiss the claims. The environmentalists' claims have no cognitive status. They are not "possible," "probable," "certain," "true," or most importantly: "false." If their claims are not backed up by evidence, then their claims have no cognitive content, and therefore bear no relationship to reality.

The fact they the environmentalists' nominally use words that we recognize and have no inherent contradictory status is in-essential and irrelevant. It does not make them any closer to reason than the religionist, nor any more honest. To the extent that their claims are arbitrary, they deserve no consideration.

Now, for the person that has no knowledge of environmentalism, it is proper that they should take the claims seriously enough when they first hear them to ask "why?" "How do we know that Global Warming is happening, and that man is causing it?" But as soon as it becomes apparent that no answer is offered for those questions (other than "the UN said," or "the debate is over"), then it is apparent that environmentalists are another flavor of religionists, and should be treated as such.

Finally, it is not the case that religion is "more obviously false" than environmentalism. The Primacy of Existence is implicit in every concept, but explicit knowledge of the PoE is conceptually advanced. Once you have knowledge of the PoE, it is easy to dismiss religion (or the supernatural of any variety). The non-cognitive status for the arbitrary is a corollary of the PoE once you recognize that the purpose of reason is to identify reality. Environmentalism violates the PoE the same way that religion does, by asking you to suspend reason and grant cognitive status to arbitrary claims.