While the case itself will hinge on particulars of UK law and jurisprudence, the questions for readers here are less technical. What does it mean to say that "belief in climate change" is philosophical or religious or scientific? Should people who change their lifestyles based on their beliefs about climate change be protected under the same laws that protect freedom of religion? Does science tell us what philosphical or religious beliefs are valid?In March, employment judge David Neath gave Nicholson permission to take the firm to a tribunal over his treatment. The company is challenging the ruling, arguing that environmental beliefs are not the same as religious or philosophical ones.
Nicholson, from Oxford, said his views – which compelled him to make his home more eco-friendly and do not allow him to fly – affect his entire life. In a witness statement to the previous hearing, he said: "I have a strongly-held philosophical belief about climate change and the environment. I believe we must urgently cut carbon emissions to avoid catastrophic climate change."
He stopped working for Grainger as head of sustainability in July last year, having been at the company since June 2006. At an employment appeal tribunal in central London today, Dinah Rose QC, for Nicholson, said: "The philosophical belief in this case is that mankind is headed towards catastrophic climate change and that, as a result, we are under a duty to do all that we can to live our lives so as to mitigate or avoid that catastrophe for future generations.
"We say that that involves a philosophical and ethical position. It addresses the question, what are the duties that we own to the environment and why?"
She told Mr Justice Michael Burton – who ruled last year that Al Gore's environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth was political and partisan – that beliefs about "anthropogenic climate change" could be considered a philosophy under the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003.
John Bowers QC, representing Grainger, said Nicholson's views were based on scientific fact and were predominantly political. "We would say that because it is political, it is dealing with an assertion of fact," he said. "It is a scientific view rather than a philosophical one. Philosophy deals with matters that are not capable of scientific proof."
Paging Ben Hale . . . ;-)
UPDATE: Ben's pager was apparently on this morning
27 comments:
I've always preferred the scheme presented by Charles Sanders Peirce in his essay "The Fixation of Belief." For Peirce, human beings dislike being in a state of doubt and wish to move from it to a state of belief. To that end, various strategies have been applied, historically speaking. They are:
1) Method of Tenacity - A personal belief that is adopted merely because it appeals to the individual (for whatever reason.) This can persist by one merely avoiding or discounting information contrary to the belief held.
2) Method of Authority - Uses the power of the social unit to enforce a specific set of beliefs. Nonconformity by individuals can be allowed within certain limits, but stray beyond them and you are out of luck.
3) Method of A Priori - Adopt a philosophical axiom as the "truth," because it appeals to your sense of reason, and work out all beliefs from that starting point.
4) Method of Science - The pragmatist conception of science as a social construct built upon open investigation of questions, using methods, which are themselves open to questioning and investigation, experimentation, etc.
Now, beliefs which we could call Philosophical or Religious could inhabit any of methods 1-3 (religious ideas more common in methods 1 & 2 obviously), but not method 4.
Now, in Perice's view, there is no reason why we should castigate people simply because they chose to fix belief in a different way (Peirce specifically claims we shouldn't call them irrational.) However, when we are dealing with how ideas should be treated within the context of a court of law, well decisions have to be made.
For example, someone could absolutely believe they have uncovered "repressed memories" via hypgnosis and, by Peircian terms, we cannot call such a person irrational. But that doesn't tell us how a court of law should treat those "memories" when they are offered up as evidence in a hearing. Obviously, modern courts have preferred beliefs that are fixed by the Method of Science (with some sad exceptions), so in the abscence of other evidence such "memories" are deemed unrelaible, especially since psychologists cannot find any evidence for the existence of repressed memories.
Now, for this case, WHY Mr. Nicholson was fired (i.e. the stated reasons) are not incidental. (And the story does not give us those original reasons.) If, for example, flying to meetings on short notice was a part of the job description, and Mr. Nicholson began to refuse to do so well.... I think the technical response is "tough." That would be as if someone working for Hormel converted to Judaism and then refused to do any work until they stopped making bacon, and then sued for religious persecution after they got fired for not performing their duties.
"Does science tell us what philosphical or religious beliefs are valid?"
That's an easy one.
Any 'belief' that makes statements about things that can be observed – or are directly or indirectly connected with things that can be observed – can be 'tested' by new 'related' observations. All of these are subject to evaluation in terms of confidence intervals, and are potentially scientific subjects. This excludes 'pure' mathematical and logical models that make no reference to 'reality' (what we can observe and ALSO demonstrate to others) as well as those religious, economic and other ideological 'beliefs' that are patently untestable.
Priesthood? Check.
Missionaries? Check.
Requirement of orthodoxy/persecution of blasphemy? Check.
Division between Believers and Infidels/Pagans? Check.
End of world/apocalypse? Check.
Duty to sacrifice to appease God? Check.
Definition of sin? Check.
Mechanism to absolve sin? Check.
Of course, the gentleman in question doesn't claim religious protection. His claim in philosophical. This is allowed in British law because they couldn't write religious protection into British law without equal status for atheists, who wanted the goodies but didn't want anyone calling them just another religious cult. So in the case of secular Britain, religion has nothing to do with it.
To believe in climate change is to believe in empiricism. The climate changes all the time -- always has, always will.
But, to believe in environmental extremism -- to believe that human activity is a threat to the planet (or even a significant driver of climate change) -- is CLEARLY to believe in a religion.
Jonah Goldberg describes “modern” American Liberalism -- which is the absolute antithesis of Classical Liberalism -- as “a totalitarian, political religion”.
I would describe “modern” American Liberalism -- especially as practiced by the eco-extremists among them -- as the single most dangerous and destructive totalitarian, political religious cult the world has EVER seen.
Should this cult be recognized as a legitimate religion under British law? That’s a lot like expecting British law to recognize the Manson family as a legitimate religion. No, wait. That’s not a fair comparison. The Manson family has done FAR less harm to humanity.
If he ultimately wins his case, there would be amusing unanticipated consequences.
Would Len Ornstein testify that "deniers" beliefs are not based on "things that can be observed" and are therefore religious in nature?
Should a classroom teacher in Liverpool be protected from dismissal because she doesn't want to indoctrinate the young ones with the "false heresy of global warming"?
What if its a science teacher who believes that the Mayan calendar foretells the end of the world in 2012?
Perhaps this problem will be sorted out by defining some views as "religious", and others as "crazy". On what side of the line would global warming skepticism stand?
I imagine (with humorous consequences of course) a judge being asked to evaluate the relative rationality of:
A. extrapolating the Argo data set and
B. believing the biblical account of Christ's resurrection?
NWB has a good list.
It might be added that religions can continue ad infinitum despite their predictions of apocalypses failing to happen on schedule. Witness the first millenium expectation for the apocalypse which didn't occur. Its failure to occur didn't seem to put much of a dent in the orthodox view.
Should it be clearly demonstrated over time that the magnitudeand effect of human activity forcings is more than adequately over-ridden/suppressed by natural cyclic and negative feedback processses, you'll still have a large claque wanting us to ease off on our cruelty to mother nature.
I can draw parallels with computer modeled climate catastrophe 'true believers' and a religion:
God - James Hansen
Son of God - Al Gore
The Devil - Steve McIntyre
Church - IPCC
Bible - IPCC AR4
Ritual - recycling
The Great Flood - rising sea levels
10 commandments:
1. Thou shalt not burn fossil fuel
2. Thou shalt not emit CO2
3. Thou shalt not travel by any rapid means
4. Thou shalt not have heat or light by viable means
5. Thou shalt not have a productive job that contributes to the economy
6. Thou shalt not have economic growth
7. Thou shalt not question the global warming religion
8. Thou shalt only play hockey with a stick made of bristlecone pine
9. Though shalt not kill the hockey stick
10. Thou shalt redistribute wealth in the name of global warming
IPCC Prayer:
I believe in Manmade Global Warming
Which will destroy earth and heaven unless we pay more tax
I believe in Al Gore
Who patented the carbon dollar
And the hockey-stick plot, born of Mann but work of Gaia
It suffered under McIntyre and McKitrick
Was crucified, disproven, and was buried
On the third day It rose again
And was published in IPCC literature
It will apply again if ever global temperatures start rising
I believe in the carbon dioxide tipping point
In all IPCC Assessment Reports, the impartiality of the media
And the accuracy of surface gridded data
Unnatural climate variation after 1970
And grants everlasting.
AMEN
Not Whitey Bulger #3,
I agree with JohnF -- your checklist is excellent.
I would add one additional key element -- the parable of the loss of harmony with nature. The Christian analog is the parable of the Garden of Eden and the fall from grace.
Or, to put it in a checklist format:
A Garden of Eden/Fall from Grace parable
Dr. Ian Plimer touches on this -- and more -- in his analysis.
Or not. Check out my response here:
http://cruelmistress.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/justified-true-belief/
Nicholson said:
> "I have a strongly-held philosophical belief about climate change and the environment."
Note the word "about". He never said he believes *in* climate change. He accepts the overwhelming science.
His philosophical belief determines what should be done:
> "I believe we must urgently cut carbon emissions to avoid catastrophic climate change."
Why am I able to spot the obvious but you are not? Why have you attempted to spin it so that it appears Nicholson has a "religious belief" *in* climate change? Rhetorical questions.
Similarly, he is using the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003 to mount his case - but you refer to it as simply "religious law" - which appears further in to the article, if you got that far. Why is that? Another rhetorical question.
I guess when you can't win the scientific debate, this is the best you do....
-10-David
Wow. David, try the decaf.
The phrase "religious law" is from the Guardian story. I wrote that Henderson "claims that the firm fired him due to his beliefs about climate change." Note: "about" not "in".
More cherry picking, Roger? Haven’t you done enough of that for one day? Emphasising that you cherry picked does not mitigate or excuse it.
Similarly, lying by omission is still lying.
-12-David
If you think that my ~50 word introduction to the Guardian piece in this post was horribly incomplete, then you should have a look at the sparseness of this intro :-)
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/10/chongs-bongs-and-laplaces-demons.html
There are plenty of interesting substantive places to offer criticism of my work, this ain't one of them.
If you have views on the questions at the end of the post, which aren't about the case, have at 'em.
Roger,
There is a lot to consider here.
Suppose belief in AGW Climatology orthodoxy was to be labeled a religion?
Would our constitutional (US) proscription of establishment of a state religion protect us from the religion becoming a basis of state policy?
Would Copenhagen be our Council of Nicea?
I think we're safe because the adoption of AGW etc. as a state religion could be very costly and for that reason unlikely to happen regardless of what the Constitution allows.
To the base question whether belief in AGW can be considered a religion; yes of course.
For years I have written “global warming” when the topic was the science, and “Global Warming” when the topic was the degree of faith in the science. The debate between warmists and skeptics has reminded me of my childhood arguments between the Methodists and Baptists.
NWB at #3 has a good check list to prove that point and the Iconic Midwesterner at #1 presents a good reason why people need to believe.
While on the topic of science and the need to believe, I propose that the need to believe is a distinct disadvantage in science. Show me a person who already believes and I will show you a person who has stopped looking for answers. But I could be wrong, I’m not sure.
As to the question of “Does science tell us what philosphical or religious beliefs are valid?” I’m not sure; was that intended to be provocative or rhetorical, or both?
Seems highly appropriate on the 40th anniversary of Monty Python.
Al Gore is not
the messiah, he is a very naughty boy.
This is a good and varied and updated blog,
I am glad to have come across it..
As for climate change and religion:
As the man shows, there is a sort of self-flagellation zeal among some environmentalists,
akin to what some worshipping Christians might display,
in this case an enjoyment of sacrificially cutting down energy use as far as possible to save the planet.
And why not, in the man's own personal life:
The problem is in the way that belief is forced onto everyone else, by law,
either by accomodation
(in the way this man handles his job...though, as another commenter says, it doesn't say what exactly the problem was in the workplace - refusing to fly?)
or by direct measures,
Mr Obama & Co stating what light bulbs and other products people can or can't use for example.
As I say elsewhere and on Ceolas.Net ,
it's not a case of not dealing with energy and emission problems,
it's the assumption that they have to be dealt with by the sort of cut-down-and-save measures that this man and others believe in...
Add indulgences (i.e. carbon credits) to the list.
But who will be our Luther and create the movement which ultimately forces the "church" to abandon its corruption and return to the core mission (i.e. the scientific method with transparency and replication)?
It seems that Grainer and mr Nicholson are arguing for the wrong camp.
For sure, if mr Nicholson believe in catastrophic AGW, he should not want it to be either a philosophical or religious belief, rather than a scientific proof.
On the other, Grainer arguing that AGW is a scientific proof is a counter productive argument, I mean, if they admit that mr Nicholson fears are real.
It's not too fair singling out this particular area since there are very many cult-like beliefs in our social and professional groups. Mark Thoma the economist asked if modern economics was a religion. Most responders said indeed it was and that such adherance to a doctrine prevented economists from looking too hard at real life data, preferring the theory instead (this was pre-crash, before that view went mainstream). Such behavior is rife in every human endeavor and history, even recent history, is loaded with examples. We will basically believe only what suits our preferred dogma, we become herd-like and irrational in defending that dogma and we eschew any debate on our ideological "truth".
It's also very apparent the tendency to see other peoples beliefs as a cult while not seeing you have your own cult with equally irrational beliefs. SBVOR and Stan above are perfect examples of people who go way over the top in describing the flaws in other peoples ideology yet regard their own with rose-tinted glasses.
Perhaps tribalism is a better description. This "debate" is a lot like two tribes standing on opposite hillsides waving sticks at each other. There are actually many win-win strategies whereby we could meet in the middle and be green while saving money and sensibly planning a future energy policy and you might have thought we'd be discussing them. But no, it's apparent to me that the tribalists just look for any other means to continue their fight. I'm forced to conclude that it is the fight itself that is somehow more important than the issues.
Human beliefs are formulated along a spectrum of evidence-based approaches.
At one end is religion - beliefs founded on faith (i.e. evidence, data etc. plays no part)
At the other end is the scientific method - beliefs founded on data, evidence etc.
Any area of belief will fall roughly at some point along that spectrum.
I think you need to address some very recent worrying issues regarding the disclosure and sharing of data and methods in the field of AGW research before trying to argue that belief in dangerous anthropogenic climate change has not/is not slipping in the direction the religious end.
That in itself should concern us deeply.
Earth worshippers in the blue corner versus sun worshippers in the red.
One axiomatic point noone has yet mentioned as far as I can see it is the belief - which is specific to the individual - not the hypothesis/theory/PV that is to be judged here.
AGW might be a religion for one person, but a strict scientific theory for another.
I can argue that AGW (or any hypothesis/theory) is my religion, in that nothin will convince me it is false - even an apparent complete refutation in peer reviewed research.
This provides the complete answer to your headline. For the claimant in question, it might appear as Yes, it is a religion if evidence could not sway his opinions. Only Tim Nicholson can answer that question.
I forgot to add 'sacrifice' to my list.
Add more fuel to the debate http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704335904574495643459234318.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
re: Superfreakonomics "when it comes to the religion of global warming—the First Commandment of which is Thou Shalt Not Call It A Religion—Messrs. Levitt and Dubner are grievous sinners."
"their biggest sin, which is also the central point of the chapter, is pointing out that seemingly insurmountable problems often have cheap and simple solutions."
"All these suggestions are, of course, horrifying to global warmists, who'd much prefer to spend in excess of a trillion dollars annually for the sake of reconceiving civilization as we know it, including not just what we drive or eat but how many children we have.
...
Part of the genius of Marxism, and a reason for its enduring appeal, is that it fed man's neurotic fear of social catastrophe while providing an avenue for moral transcendence. It's just the same with global warming."
Roger,
I thought you might find this interesting. On CNBC this morning (10/28), the guest was Bill Gross, head of PIMCO (runs the world's largest bond fund). Someone talked about how cold it has been in a lot of places, Gross said something about global warming taking a brief timeout (don't remember his word choice, but that was the essence). Joe Kernan (having a little fun with the assertion of global warming) mentioned that 1998 was the hottest year, ice increasing in Antarctica ... and Gross interjected, "Joe, you're a good Republican."
Pretty much says it all. For some it's a religion. For some it's political faith. For some, both. But it sure ain't science.
What Ben, Maurice, gdes and Geckko said.
Roger, it seems that, predictibly, many of your "skeptical" readers couldn`t actually bring themselves to address your questions, but I`ll try:
1. What does it mean to say that "belief in climate change" is philosophical or religious or scientific?
Seems like a trick or confused question to me - if it`s "belief" we already generally consider it not to relate to matters that cannot be established empirically, viz., to be religious or based on shared community or philosophical values, and not to material, scientifically verifiable matters.
Of course in the case of climate we are talking about enormously complex and poorly understood systems. It seems clear to me that we are altering the ocean pH, but conclusions by scientists as to our impact on climate are not understandable to laymen, and cannot be personally confirmed except on scales of lifespans.
Further, people have differing often polarized views as to what actions are preferable with respect to climate, which tends to affect their perceptions of the motives and rationality of those who disagree with them.
Let me note that this cuts both ways, on the right, readers might want to take a gander at these two exchanges I`ve had with Lubos Motl about his eliminationist fantasies:
http://bit.ly/3s5jB4
http://it.ly/1RZFAE
2. Should people who change their lifestyles based on their beliefs about climate change be protected under the same laws that protect freedom of religion?
Is there a scientific answer to this question?
No? Well, my personal view, as a libertarian/paleo-con/classic liberal is: yes, of course, on the same basis that we protect all opinion under our rights of association and expression as stated in our 4th Amendment. However, our legislation and jurisprudence have gone way too far in extending the state into religious, workplace and economic affairs. The UK law and regulation are an abomination!;)
3. Does science tell us what philosphical or religious beliefs are valid?
Science can play a limited role in telling us (1) whether some beliefs can be verified, and (2) that man has an exquisite moral sense and a penchant for devising group religous-type "truths", which we apparently acquired via the process of evolution, as an aid to intra-group cooperation.
Post a Comment