A “religion without god” is not a new thing.

Buddhism also does not require its followers to worship any god. Taoism, kunfucianism the same.

Communism also behaved as a secular religion. It had its own prophet (Marx), its bible (Das Kapital), its inquisiton, heretics, martyrs (Che).

And protection at work? I think, that if your religion conflicts with your work duties, the employer has full right to dismiss you. Go find some work, where your religion is not an obstacle.

Ok, fair point. It was a tongue in cheek remark… perhaps I should have asked “who is our leader”? Al Gore perhaps? Obama? The IPCC?

In terms of your other point, the case was brought to court because he was discriminated against on the basis of his views rather than because he wasn’t doing his job properly. One would think that believing in Climate Change would be a pre-requisite of being Head of Sustainability. So I think your point is mute. The real question is do people have a “right” to philosophical beliefs in the way they have a “right” to religious views?

If you ask, how the whole green thing started, I think it is the Club of Rome and their publication Limits of Growth. This is the “bible”. There is not a single leader, but a circle of leaders.

I do not know the details of the Nicholson case. But I think he proposed environmental measures, that would be costly and would decrease the profits of the company. I think this is why they fired him. Not because of beliefs, but because of profits - which is the ultimate goal of any business, after all.

Protection of faith: Since secular state should not have an official ideology, civil service should not require any specific faith from the applicants. But private company is something else.

If I run a catholic school, do I not have the right to hire only catholic teachers?

Q: If Climate Change is a religion, then who is our God?

A: Gaia.

The Nicholson Case may be the early incidences of a sociological tremor of a paradigm shift. History of human civilization shows that it goes by epochs; each epoch having it’s charertistic world view. These world views are not fashions or -isms or doctrins, but a deep psycho-social basis of a collective human mind that is born out of social needs. As communication systems become more sophisticated (from speech to language to media to internet of the present day) the epoch transitions get shorter in time. We have seen an epoch of brute power and emperialism, another of religious endoctrinations, another of science and industrialsm, another of information and communication…. and now we are socially transforming into the epoch of environmentalism. The Environmental concern is more than a technological or economic-political issue. It’s going to be the world view of the new millenium. The impact of environmental degradation is yet to sink into the global-psyche and that is evident from the political bickering about it (north-south divide) and unwilingness of policy implementations by the developed countries. But collective human mind has started to sense the impending doom and that anxiety and confusion is manifest in extreme views in favor and against environmental protectionism.
You might not get your answer in religion-based models of belief systems because God is a failed hypothesis (sorry,if that sounds harsh). Search for your answers in history of human civilisation. I find similarity between Nicholson case and Galilio.

As regards patriotism,I think I have something to say. Patriotism is a deep loyalty towards own state/country and an attitude to sacrifice for it’s good. It is held as a value of high order. On a broader context, patriotism or its modern variant, nationalism may be evry complicated. A patriot somewhere may be dubbed as a criminal some place else. Patriotism, per se, is a political concept and categorically different from environmentalism. By nature the later is global in true sense, beyond political and geographical boundaries. I have a feeling that true environmental governance will never be effective as long as we are ready to give up the concepts of “state” or “soverignty”. I know it sounds utopian to many but the social gradients point towards this. When policies will be framed and implemented, it could not possibly by-pass the debate on cost-sharing of the damage and repair by nations and such debates can cause serious delay or foil effective environmental governance. I am not being pessimistic. It helps if we realize the difficulty of the tast at hand.

Correction: I have a feeling that true environmental governance will never be effective as long as we are NOT ready to give up the concepts of “state” or “sovereignty”.

@ Pabitra. Your comments regarding a paradigm shift are very interesting. It’s hard to tell what environmentalism will translate into… a dogma, a fad and source of collective thinking. I feel like we are waiting for a tipping point at the moment. Climate Change might result in a paradigm shift such as you’re referring to, but then again if sufficient momentum isn’t gained it could just be a failed movement. I would also ask how it differs from something like the suffragettes movement or civil rights, which both started in the western world but have implications globally. They have had an impact on collective conciousness, but I wouldn’t compare them in force to imperialism or industrialisation. What do you think defines a paradigm shift such as you’re anticipating with environmentalism?

I didn’t use the term Paradigm Shift with respect to Environmental Concern like a buzzword - it has been abused a bit (read Mind the Gaffe by Larry Trask). I used it in the context of a major change in a certain thought pattern - a radical change in personal beliefs, complex system of organizations replacing the former way of thinking or organizing with a radically different way of thinking. I won’t say that the paradigm shift that I am talking about is comparable with Suffragette or civil rights, which are at best social movements.
The social paradigm is like a thread that connects humanity over societies, countries and even continents in the very way it looks at life, believes things and to a large extent behaves within a given set of incidents. We had a paradigm once when everything was viewed from a religious perspective. Religion was at the center of intellect, it influenced life of common people, trade and commerce, politics, literature, philosophy and even governance. With the advent of Newtonian Determinism, rationality (and science & technology) replaced that religious social paradigm. Interestingly, these paradigms were not movements; they were more profound than that - a sort of collective thought and attitude to life having deep roots in social necessities. They had been the most socially relevant aspects of life. I am trying to say that we are on the edge of such a shift once again, born out of an anxiety and confusion regarding worsening environment. Most importantly, the paradigm shift this time is the most universal in the history of world. Having lived the deterministic reality for so long, we are sluggish to change and are still looking for technological “cure’ of this malady - a finite and scalable solution. But underneath our social sub-conscious we have already started to feel worried as we are confronting a degradation of our bio-sphere by our own acts. And the effects of such degradation will not spare divides like western-eastern, developed-developing, first-second-third worlds, land, sea, air or humanity and all the species. Since the worsening effects are all pervading, the social gradients are the most universal as far as environmentalism is concerned. I base my observation on the history of human civilization as a whole. Unfortunately world leaders have to live the immediate realities (they still need a tolerable name like Climate Change, as if it’s a matter of some draughts and over-precipitation, some cold or hot years!)  - but it is only a matter of time before all other issues die out on the face of the environmental threats. There had been an unequal global distribution of resources always, and we have interfered with the key resources to such an extent that we won’t be having much chance of fighting the degradation within the present frame-work of geo-political, state-nation based structure.  Similarly our whole life-styles and attitudes in the context of our interactions with the environment will demand changes radically. I am calling that the paradigm-shift here. Somehow, I am sensing the process of that great shift has started, with or without COP15.

Pardigm shift? Why invent new terms for old things? Environemntalism is simply a new ideology - we may see it as a secular religion.

As Gile Keppel pointed out in the “Revenge of God”, religious thinking is on the rise since 1970s.

Religion is about regulation: it regulates every step of your life in the interest of Something (God’s will, redemption, Environment, Gaia…). It prescribes you what to eat, what to wear, when to get up… And thus it removes your freedom.

I didn’t invent the term Paradigm Shift.There are enough literature and scholarly works where the term had been used (with more or less same meaning), but “The Turning Point” by Fritzof Kapra may serve as a good reference. Vitezslav is entitled to his opinion, but I do not agree that environmentalism is simply a new ideology neither we may see it as a secular religion.
Interestingly, the view of Gile Keppel in “The Revenge of God” was presented and persuaded following rational logic - which is the essence of the social paradigm of his epoch. It does not create any contradiction with the shift I am talking about. When the intellectual base starts to shift the first thing a human mind seeks is a conflict.
No religion is secular. By very nature of religion it curbs free thought and expression - “Thau shalt not have any other God before me”. Envirironmentalism is a vexing term, which scholars define in myriad different ways. My theory is that the environmental concerns and the related anxiety has the potential to affect our life and therefore our intellects in such a profound and universal way that it will ultimately be the single most relevant human issue and that’s when a new paradigm will form shifting from the rationality based technological solution seeking paradigm of the last millennium.
Regarding freedom or curbing of it. The concept of freedom is not free from the influences of the current paradigm of rational, reductionist and deterministic view. When the paradigm shifts, freedom will mean and signify something in line of the shifted paradigm. In that set of belief systems, it might not be viewed as curbing, rather spontaneous and responsible limitations for a collective and greater good of society.

You can see that:
http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/why_the_ipcc_position_is_understood_so_dogmatically

I feel that I am misunderstood in most forums wherever I talk about my theory of paradigm-shift as described above. I have grown stoic to the criticisms to my ideas. I feel compelled to certain things clear. I am not environmentalist, I do not subscribe Al Gore brand of green politics, I do not also believe the contrarian logic (propounded by the Romanian President) that Climate Change, AGW or anthropogenic destruction of environment is a myth. My perspective is absolutely free from any bias in favor or against environmental protection.
What I see is this. There are two levels of our consciousness.
The one which is on the surface does not like changes - we tend to think we are just fine as we are. Such state of mind dispels any large-scale change in our views. When locomotive was first introduced,we resisted it - however absurd that might sound now.
There is another level of consciousness, which manifests in much subtler ways over grander scales of time and space. This makes us accept things like equal gender opportunity, freedom of expression and end of racial bias. We accept those changes over long periods of time and through a process of conflict. The process is slow but inevitable on account of deep social gradients acting on us. That environmental concern will be the ultimate most relevant human issue and form a new paradigm one day is based on this process.
IPCC is not a scientific body, admittedly. There are scientific debates about the degree of environmental damage caused by us - it’s not settled yet,the final verdict has not come. But these are only trivial observations if we look look at the Biosphere from system’s point of view. Humans are only part of the system and this part is threatening to overtake the whole.
My esteemed critics often ask me, ok fine,what do you propose? We depopulate?
I do not feel shame to answer that I honestly do not know. There had been instances in the past where someone asked a question and somebody else answered.

Pabitra,
1) Nobody said paradigm shift is your invention. It is a well known term.
2) There truly ARE secular religions. Buddhism or kunfucianism does not ask you to worship any specific god. Communism also was a secular religion with its own prophets, martyrs, heretics, dogmas.
3) You seem to use the term of paradigm shift to justify the view, that “freedom” is not a universal value, but an artificial construct of one phase of European culture. I disagree. Even horses when caught in captivity, try to escape. They value freedom.

Pabitra, your opinion that environmentalism brings Change is interesting. To me it seems, that environmentalism opposes change. It wants to stop the technology from changing. It even opposes the climate changte. It opposes capitalism, which - as Marx noted already in Communist Manifest - is based upon constant change of production methods.

@ Vitezsluv. Secularism is a political term. By definition, it’s an attitude of a state by which it distances itself from all religious faith and practices but do not interfere with an individual’s wish/freedom to practice it harmoniously with others. A secular state does not form its policies on the basis of a given religious faith neither it discriminates its citizens on the basis of his/her religion. Mere not having a any specific god to worship is not the sign of a religion is secular. Please try to use the definition of secularism within a religion and it will be clear that secularism cannot work in a religion. Unless you can show me a religion that encourages its followers to go to a monastery on monday, a mosque on tuesday. a church on wednesday….and so forth.
Possibly Hinduism comes closest to a secular religion, but then scholars say, Hinduism is not really a religion in the strictest sense of meaning,rather it is a collection of different ways to pray and worship.
Communism is not a secular religion either. Marx held religion as opium, a bourgeois tool in the hand of the oppressors to exploit people. In Peoples Republic of China, practice of religion in public is discouraged and government servants are prohibited to go to church, mosque or temple to worship. Again it does not fit the definition of secularism.

You only confirm my feeling of being misunderstood. One has to be very stupid to imply that “freedom” is an artificial construct of one phase of European Culture. I certainly did not imply it. I give you a counter thought. What about freedom of giving up freedom? Mahatma Gandhi came from an affluent family, had an European education, a high-paying lawyer’s career in South Africa and he was very accustomed to European clothing. However, he realized that he represented a poor nation that lived in loin clothes and gave up his freedom of wearing suits and tie. He visited Buckingham Palace in loin clothes, in which he lived the rest of his life with dignity and pride. He exercised his freedom to give up when it was socially warranted.

It is seldom understood that freedom is not a value. It is a sense. It arises from the social necessities - for somebody alone in the universe freedom makes no sense. I can extend your “horse-in-captivity” analogy and say that a racing horse born and reared in captivity will probably walk back to stable if let loose in wilderness.It will seek the freedom of security of the stable with which it is accustomed. Then I am certain you will not ascribe the faculties like dignity, pride to a horse, at least not in the same context they are applicable to human beings.

I do not know what exactly is meant by environmentalism. What I contend is that concern for worsening environment will ultimately be the most relevant human issue. I am foreseeing that it may be so overwhelming that whole world view will change, state-nation boundaries will melt, and we may think in quite a different way from how we are thinking now. And the definition of “freedom” may be different also. When that happens, the technology models of today will not work.

- DON’T MAKE AN ABSOLUTE OUT OF AN -ISM. MISPLACED ZEAL. HE PROBABLY WENT OVER THE TOP WITH IT AND ACTED LIKE A DICK AS A RESULT. ‘THE IDOLS OF IDEOLOGY’.

BLINDED BY SCIENCE!

-ISM’S BECOME RELIGEONS TO THE LOST. YOUR HEART LIES ELSEWHERE.

-WHAT DO BUDDISTS END UP DOING? WORSHIPPING BUDDHA.

-IT’S ONLY WITHIN GOD’S WILL (CHRISTIANITY) THAT YOU ARE FREE! SEEMS LIKE A CONTRADICTION. AT PEACE AND IN HARMONY WITH ONE’S TRUE SELF , OTHER SELVES, GOD AND ALL CREATION. 

- PHILOSOPHY IS OF THE MIND, FAITH/RELIGEON IS ABOUT THE SPIRITUAL.  DRAW THAT LINE!

- CHANGE IS INEVITABLE, ‘LUDDITE’ ENVIRO’S.

- SAVE THE PLANET, KILL YOURSELF, SAVE YOUR SCENE, KILL YOURSELF, SAVE YOURSELF, ‘KILL’ YOURSELF, (DIE TO SELF / RENOUNCE SELF) AND BE BORN AGAIN!

- DON’T BE AFRAID OF YOUR FREEDOM.

I am not sure if James is calling me a “dick” (if you can imagine, I am smiling inwardly as I am typing). James is free to do that, I am free to laugh it away.
However, in this seemingly silly interaction,there lies a fine point. I understand that within the framework of a certain cultural set up that four lettered word is supposed to invoke insult and angry denial. But anatomically it performs its purposes with reasonable satisfaction of procreation and excretion - two most important biological functions that keep us going for thousands of years. Functionally, it is as essential as (or more essential than) nose, tongue, eyes, ears….you name it. Logically one should not mind being called a “dick”.
The only objection that I find is that it is sexist. In slang, it implies an attitude but that attitude is not the monopoly of males - may be it is outdated for a metro-sexual society.
In any case, James sound too charged with prophetic fervor than reason, hence not my cup of tea. Just one small correction. Science never blinds. It makes one see what eyes cannot.