When Tetzel comes a-knockin'

One of the theological emphases of the Reformed branch of Christianity (and perhaps one of the reasons why I would broadly classify myself as a Reformed Christian) is the notion that all of life is "religious". This is not a thesis I wish to defend at any length in this blog post (although I may blog on it at some stage in the future) but assuming for the sake of argument that it is true then the implication for those who claim to be Christian is obvious: those who profess to follow the triune God are to serve him and seek his glory in every area of life. If all of life is a life of service to God then the division of life into the "religious" (eg going to church, praying etc) and the "areligious" (eg going to work, grocery shopping, playing football etc) is ultimately a false dichotomy. On this view the true dichotomy is not between "religious" and "areligious" but rather between "true religion" and "false religion". One less obvious implication of this thesis is what it has to say about those who do not profess to follow God or be "religious" in any way. If this thesis is correct (and I believe it is although I'm not attempting to argue it here) then such people are indeed "religious" people, living "religious" lives. On this view even self-professed atheists and agnostics are, despite their protestations to the contrary, deeply "religious" people, thinking "religious" thoughts, doing "religious" things -- in other words living thoroughly "religious" lives. What's more, many Reformed thinkers would take this idea a step further beyond individuals to societies. Even self-professed "atheistic" or "secular" societies are on this view deeply "religious". Interestingly in Australia we often joke about the fact that sport is a "religion" for some people -- and perhaps even the nation as a whole -- but such remarks arguably reveal a much deeper (and more uncomfortable) truth than many are willing to admit.

Anyway, with that introduction I want to move on to the main point of this post. Doug Wilson has written a brief but insightful comment here. The words of Wilson are worth pondering:

One area of secular blindness (one of many) is their inability to see how religious they are being. Having defined religion quite narrowly as church buildings and altars, they are utterly incapable of seeing the all-pervasive and quite religious nature of their frenzies and crusades. The problem with invisible religions like this is that one cannot watch them to see if they are going bad. And so they don't.

They do not see Tetzel in carbon offsets. They do not see shun[n]ing in the treatment the neighbo[u]rhood gives the guy who doesn't sort his garbage according to the dictates of the regulatory bishops. They don't see a fierce imposition of morality in their crusades for the sake of saving us all from climate change. They do not see blasphemy laws in thought crimes legislation. They do not see their religion in ever[y]thing they do, and this is because idolaters are blind.

Wilson's post raises many implications (particularly in his final paragraph which I did not quote and which I do not wish to discuss at this time), many of which weren't new to me. But what he did say is very topical in light of a number of present day "debates" going on in society. The question of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is one such debate. It's an important question which should be addressed. For present purposes I don't take a view on the rights or wrongs of the scientific theories and economic analysis behind it all (I do have something of a view but it's irrelevant to the point I'm making here so I hold my tongue) but whether or not you accept the view that the earth is getting warmer as a result of human activity and that this is something we can and should act to avert, the highly "religious" nature of the whole affair is inescapable. And that is what I'm commenting on (and criticising) here. It is entirely possible for the scientists to be right as a matter of science (and the economists right as a matter of economics etc) and yet for us still to be wrong as a matter of religion. (Of course it's also possible that the scientists are wrong as a matter of science etc but as I said that's not a debate I want to get into here).

A number of recent stories in the press and events in the blogopshere serve to confirm these observations about the "religious" nature of the whole AGW thing. James Delingpole recently interviewed Professor Ian Plimer for The Spectator about the publication of his recent book Heaven And Earth which is critical of much of the theory of AGW (although not the general notion of climate change which I know of no-one in the scientific community denying) and which set off a train of angry responses in the press and the blogosphere. I haven't read Plimer's book so I'm not going to embarrass myself by pontificating on a book I haven't read (a practice which many of Plimer's detractors would do well to adopt) but having read much of the reaction in the press and the blogopshere I do feel able to comment on that. (In actual fact I'm not completely ignorant about Plimer's book: as well as the interview in The Spectator I have read the following piece by Plimer in The Australian outlining his argument). Following the interview with Plimer he published in the Spectator, Delingpole blogged on the topic here which sparked a for-the-most-part-predictable response by George Monbiot here (predictable in the sense that Monbiot is a left-of-centre environmentalist writing for the left-of-centre Grauniad so obviously he's going be critical of anything written (a) by the right-of-centre Delingpole, (b) in the the right-of-centre Spectator, and (c) giving credence to critics of AGW who are generally hated with a passion by avowed left-of-centre environmentalists such as Monbiot). What was less predictable, however was the off-handed way in which Monbiot discounted those whom he classed as climate change deniers as essentially religious fanatics: "What this story shows is that climate change denial is a matter of religious conviction". (In making that claim Monbiot linked to the following story in the Grauniad).

In a sense that's a fair enough point to raise. Maybe "climate change denial" is a matter of "religious conviction" rather than a scientific opinion based on evidence (but then again maybe it's not). But if you're going to argue that then there is an equally strong point to be made that the pro-AGW position is also held as a matter of "religious conviction". What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and all that.

Of course I suspect Monbiot and his fellow "environmentalists" and AGW-enthusiasts would vehemently resist such a categorisation, arguing that while the views of "climate change deniers" might be held as a matter of religious conviction, their own views are nothing of the sort, instead being the result of enlightened scientific enquiry. But are they -- at least in their entirety? My view as a Christian is that the answer to that is a very clear no. In the thesis I am advancing there is no straightforward divide between "science" and "religion". It's not a question of one group being on the side of benighted religion and the other group being on the side of enlightened science. That would be too simple when all of life is in fact "religious". Even assuming that the scientific theory of AGW is correct as a matter of science (and again I stress that I take no view one way or the other on that question here), on the view I outlined above that all of life is religious, it should be obvious that there is a real danger of us making an idol of this, setting up a false religion around it. Someone can be right as a matter of science on the theory of AGW (either pro or con) and still hold views as a matter of (idolatrous) "religious conviction". The two are not mutually exclusive.

(Incidentally, what are we to make of Monbiot's use of the phrase "climate change denial"? Is it a kind of lazy shorthand for AGW-denial? Or is it itself evidence of the fact of Monbiot's own religious position? I suspect the latter. I can't stress enough that as a matter of science AGW is a specific theory about the general phenomenon of climate change and that people such as Plimer are not denying the phenomenon of "climate change". What they are denying is the theory of AGW as an adequate scientific explanation for the observable phenomenon of "climate change". They may be right or they may be wrong in their views on the adequacy of AGW as a scientific theory. But one thing they are not is "climate change" deniers. And yet Monbiot can't -- or won't -- recognise that simple distinction. If Monbiot was deliberate in his use of this phrase then to me this is evidence of the "religious" nature of his own position.)

From what I have read and observed coming out of the camp of AGW-affirmers I cannot but conclude that whatever the merits of the scientific and economic arguments, theirs is a position of deeply held religious conviction. The question then for those of who see this as a false religion is this: What are we going to do when Tetzel comes a-knocking?