Environmentalism as Religion: Dogma Over Data

Introduction

Environmentalism often cloaks itself in science, but for many, it operates as a pseudo-religion—a belief system driven by emotion, dogmatism, and faith rather than data. I define pseudo-religion as a philosophy with the emotional force of religion, marked by narrow-mindedness, intolerance of dissent, and reliance on false authority like scientific jargon or government agencies. “Belief” becomes interchangeable with “faith.” From Southwest Virginia, where I’ve seen real environmental damage from coal mining, I know the difference between practical solutions and ideological crusades. Here, I’ll explore how environmentalism’s religiosity undermines its effectiveness, fuels alarmism, and oversteps into policy.

Data, not dogma, should guide us.

Environmentalism as a Substitute Religion

Environmentalist Michael Shellenberger, in a podcast with Michael Shermer, noted that environmentalism has become a substitute religion for many non-religious people, giving them a sense of purpose by being “part of something larger.” He argues that passionate environmentalists unwittingly adopt Christian imagery: a Garden of Eden-like past where nature was in “balance and harmony” before humans disrupted it with technology. Similarly, author Michael Crichton, in a 2003 speech, described environmentalism as a religion that casts the pre-industrial world as an Edenic paradise, with humanity’s “sins” like industrialization causing a “fall.” In this view, sustainability becomes a path to “redemption,” rooted in faith rather than data.

This mirrors the spiritual distortions I’ve seen in ecology—like James Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis being misinterpreted as Earth as a “being.” Lovelock himself rejected this religious framing (2008 Guardian interview), but many environmentalists embrace it, idealizing nature as sacred. James Hansen’s rhetoric about “crimes against humanity and nature” (2008) further reflects this moralistic view, implying nature has rights akin to a deity. Such framing isn’t science—it’s ideology, turning ecology into a social science that prioritizes faith over facts.

Dogmatism and Intolerance

Like religious fundamentalists, many environmentalists read their beliefs into every event, ignoring contradictory data. Shellenberger notes they romanticize a “harmonious” nature, overlooking historical environmental damage by indigenous peoples and pre-human conflicts. Michael Crichton highlighted how environmentalists label dissenters as “deniers,” akin to heretics burned at the stake in history, enforcing dogma over debate. Climate scientist Stephen Schneider admitted in 1989 to using “scary scenarios” and “simplified, dramatic statements” while downplaying doubts to gain media attention (Discover magazine, 1989). This tactic mirrors how Christians read the New Testament into the Old Testament to justify dogma, even when the text doesn’t support it.

Rewriting historical climate data—hundreds of years of thermometer records, proxy data, and earth science studies—with computer models is scientific fraud. The earth wasn’t “created” in 1979; we have extensive records showing steady warming (~0.01°C/year since 1850) and natural variability (e.g., Little Ice Age, 1300–1850). Science should be free of social, racial, or spiritual influences—it’s about data, not feelings.

Ideological Overreach in Policy

Environmentalism’s religiosity oversteps into policy, violating the separation of church and state. Nature-centered spiritualism—treating nature as sacred, as Hansen’s “crimes against nature” rhetoric implies—has no place in public policy. Yes, we should reduce fossil fuel use and protect wildlife, but not under a moralistic framework that mirrors religious faith. Using climate change as a backdoor to political agendas like socialism or fascism is unacceptable and distorts the focus from practical solutions.

In Southwest Virginia, I’ve seen coal’s real toll—polluted creeks, scarred land—but also nature’s resilience, like the recovery of Copper Creek mussels. We need policies based on data, not pseudo-religious crusades that prioritize ideology over facts.

Broader Ideological Constructs

The same dogmatic mindset in environmentalism extends to other ideological constructs. Terms like “whiteness,” coined by post-modernists, are racial slurs used in the same vein as “Jewishness” by Nazi socialists under Hitler, carrying genocidal undertones. This reflects the same pseudo-religious intolerance seen in environmentalism: dissent is heresy, and dogma trumps data. Whether it’s climate change or race, the pattern is clear—ideology is read into reality, just as religious fundamentalists interpret their faith into every event.

Share This Article

Conclusion

Environmentalism’s religiosity—its emotional dogma, intolerance, and moralistic framing—undermines its effectiveness and distorts science. From Lovelock’s Gaia being misread as a “being” to Hansen’s “crimes against nature,” this pseudo-religious mindset fuels alarmism, as Schneider admitted with his “scary scenarios.” It oversteps into policy, violating church-state separation, and extends to other ideological constructs like “whiteness,” mirroring religious intolerance. In Southwest Virginia, I’ve learned to trust data over faith—whether it’s coal’s damage or nature’s resilience. For more on alarmism in climate science, see my pages on Lovelock, Earth vs. Venus, and Hansen’s Alarmism and Ocean Currents, Climate, Ocean pH. Let’s focus on facts, not dogma.