Climate Change as a Secular Religion

[mfbukowski]

I saw this on our local PBS station here in LA and I was really impressed how devoted this family is to reducing their carbon footprint.

They have built their entire lifestyle on these principles and actually they reminded me a little of LDS people with their "peculiar lifestyles" and even the Amish.  These are two highly educated and intelligent scientists who have married.

Without belief in God, these folks have paralleled a "religious" lifestyle but based upon what they believe is a better world for all of us instead of religion.  They believe that we are one species among all other species, that we owe humanity to have a disciplined lifestyle as perhaps religious people believe they owe God a disciplined lifestyle.

Their children are clearly being raised in this "religion".

The point I would make is to illustrate the FUNCTION of religion in our lives- to live for some higher cause.   I think this is important for us to understand in discussions with secular folks regarding religion.  Just as we cannot prove that God "exists" their lifestyle is based on faith that they are doing the "right" thing that all humanity "should" be doing.  They find happiness in "going against the dominant culture" which they find is taking a wrong turn, and which they hope to preach to the world the rightness of their lifestyle in producing happiness as well as climate change.

What is important is that their lifestyle be "intrinsically fulfilling".  Alma might call that "good fruit" that is "sweet".

Their kids are included in the effort and really they are very devoted and devout people.   I thought the parallels were fascinating- the sacrifices they have made to live their "religion"

It's about a 7 minute video and I think you will find it fascinating to ponder the parallels here.

https://www.kcet.org/shows/socal-connected/energy-saving-family

 

Edited January 24, 2018 by mfbukowski

[strappinglad]

At least they are ' walking the walk  ' and not just wearing black . I was doing energy efficiency before it was cool . In 1979- 1985 I built two homes . The first was passive solar and the second was super insulated. I am still living in the second. I did them for the wrong reasons apparently. It was to save MONEY not to save the planet. There are several secular religions now . Climate change is one that has grabbed the headlines lately. Call me when the ' ice flows down at their presence ' !

[longview]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

They have built their entire lifestyle on these principles . . .

Did you notice the caption below the video?

"Energy Saving Family - - - How did an Altadena family cut its energy use by 90%? It helps when the dad is a climate scientist who is committed to doing about global warming. Anchor, Val Zavala, meets Peter Kalmus to find out how and why he felt compelled to shrink his carbon footprint so dramatically."

The "Dad" has a vested interest in this field.  There is a very lucrative governmental system for granting large grants to "politically approved scientists."  Color me cynical but I really don't believe the proponents have any sincere convictions concerning the global warming hysteria.  Excepting those that are deluded into believing "Junk Science."

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I saw this on our local PBS station here in LA and I was really impressed how devoted this family is to reducing their carbon footprint.

They have built their entire lifestyle on these principles and actually they reminded me a little of LDS people with their "peculiar lifestyles" and even the Amish.  These are two highly educated and intelligent scientists who have married.

Without belief in God, these folks have paralleled a "religious" lifestyle but based upon what they believe is a better world for all of us instead of religion.  They believe that we are one species among all other species, that we owe humanity to have a disciplined lifestyle as perhaps religious people believe they owe God a disciplined lifestyle.

Their children are clearly being raised in this "religion".

The point I would make is to illustrate the FUNCTION of religion in our lives- to live for some higher cause.   I think this is important for us to understand in discussions with secular folks regarding religion.  Just as we cannot prove that God "exists" their lifestyle is based on faith that they are doing the "right" thing that all humanity "should" be doing.  They find happiness in "going against the dominant culture" which they find is taking a wrong turn, and which they hope to preach to the world the rightness of their lifestyle in producing happiness as well as climate change.

What is important is that their lifestyle be "intrinsically fulfilling".  Alma might call that "good fruit" that is "sweet".

Their kids are included in the effort and really they are very devoted and devout people.   I thought the parallels were fascinating- the sacrifices they have made to live their "religion"

It's about a 7 minute video and I think you will find it fascinating to ponder the parallels here.

https://www.kcet.org/shows/socal-connected/energy-saving-family

I guess one issue is how you define religion. I used to have a broader definition than I do now. This family is living what I would call a moral philosophy. In many ways I share their concerns, but I am not so sure about their means. For everyone to live the lifestyle they are promoting would put everyone back on homesteads, and there simply is not room for that anymore. If you paid close attention you would hear that a major portion of CO2 emissions come from animal farming - often more than caused by other human causes such as driving cars. 
I do share their concern for the environment, but climate changes. Historically, we are due for a mini-ice age, but I believe scripture says that the world will get hotter - and men will curse God because of the heat. If people are really deeply concerned about it, we should encourage the government to spend a little of the discretionary 30 billion of its annual budget the Dept of Energy has on a radically new source of energy - thorium powered liquid salt plants. Most of our present inefficient and dangerous nuclear plants are coming up for decommissioning and we don't have anything decent to replace them with - much less needing to get rid of coal plants. With the promise of cheap, clean, safe, and very efficient thorium powered plants, we could have plants much closer to cities, thus reducing waste even further. The cheap electricity would promise a new way of travel, which would allow us to get rid of gasoline and diesel powered cars. Electric heat is clean, but now very expensive, and the power needed is usually produced by a fossil fuel source, thus canceling out its "cleanness." To get everyone off of electricity would cause our productivity to plummet - it's really not a long-term solution. We are much more productive exactly because of electricity which allows us to have refrigerators, dryers, washers, etc. All these tools allow us to do multiple tasks at once, greatly increasing our productivity. The only thing we would need oil for is plane fuel. Everything else including heat could be provided by cheap and relatively clean natural gas and truly clean electricity. We lack the political will to get there because there are industries threatened who have powerful lobbyists in Washington. I encourage everyone to learn about this issue and get their congressmen and senators committed to changing it. We don't need extra money - just to reassign some of the discretionary money already being unwisely spent elsewhere - such as on corn subsidies for ethanol - a complete bust for the climate change crowd anyway. Instead we need to design and build a Thorium Liquid Salt reactor, which will allow private utilities an approved inroad to this new technology, and a road to commercialization, and we need to do it now, so we can have a commercially feasible plant a decade from now. Constructing all the new plants would also be a boon to the economy, and would also allow us to revamp our dated electrical grid. So hail moral philosophy - or religion if you want to call it that....

[Calm]

4 hours ago, longview said:

Did you notice the caption below the video?

"Energy Saving Family - - - How did an Altadena family cut its energy use by 90%? It helps when the dad is a climate scientist who is committed to doing about global warming. Anchor, Val Zavala, meets Peter Kalmus to find out how and why he felt compelled to shrink his carbon footprint so dramatically."

The "Dad" has a vested interest in this field.  There is a very lucrative governmental system for granting large grants to "politically approved scientists."  Color me cynical but I really don't believe the proponents have any sincere convictions concerning the global warming hysteria.  Excepting those that are deluded into believing "Junk Science."

Perhaps he chose the field because of a deep commitment to environmentalism long before he was getting any financial benefit from it.

[cacheman]

I share some of their same beliefs and lifestyle choices.  However, I feel that calling this belief system and resulting lifestyle a 'religion' is a definition of convenience.  I don't believe more than a fraction of theistic religionists in the US would be willing to share the perks of religiosity such as the freedom to exercise my 'religion'.  For example, the house that my wife and I live in is 150 square feet and not connected to the electrical or water grid.  This violates some local laws.  It would go against my 'religious beliefs' to live in a house much larger than I need despite local government mandates.  There will likely come a time when that becomes a legal issue for my wife and I.  If I use a religious freedom argument to plead my case, I don't anticipate much support from theistic religionists. 

I agree that 'moral philosophies' and their attendant lifestyles are like religions, but I'm not a fan of calling beliefs or lifestyles 'religions' unless one is willing to treat them like religions. 

Edited to add that I'm not saying that lifestyles based on moral philosophies should receive preferential treatment.  It would be presumptuous of me to think that my moral philosophy (or religion if you'd prefer) is deserving of rights and protections that aren't afforded to others.

 

Edited January 24, 2018 by cacheman

[Bob Crockett]

A good way to demonize a secular practice with which you personally disagree is to say that the practitioners are following a false religion.  

No reasonable person who disagrees with the climate change argument would say that climate change proponents are religionists.

As to whether climate change is a legitimate topic of concern, I can surely say it has nothing to do with religion.  The question and evidence for it are debatable but not frivolous. 

 

Edited January 24, 2018 by Bob Crockett

[CV75]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The point I would make is to illustrate the FUNCTION of religion in our lives- to live for some higher cause.   I think this is important for us to understand in discussions with secular folks regarding religion.

And there are so many lifestyles to choose from (D&C 88:36)!

[Atheist Mormon]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I saw this on our local PBS station here in LA and I was really impressed how devoted this family is to reducing their carbon footprint.

They have built their entire lifestyle on these principles and actually they reminded me a little of LDS people with their "peculiar lifestyles" and even the Amish.  These are two highly educated and intelligent scientists who have married.

Without belief in God, these folks have paralleled a "religious" lifestyle but based upon what they believe is a better world for all of us instead of religion.  They believe that we are one species among all other species, that we owe humanity to have a disciplined lifestyle as perhaps religious people believe they owe God a disciplined lifestyle.

Their children are clearly being raised in this "religion".

The point I would make is to illustrate the FUNCTION of religion in our lives- to live for some higher cause.   I think this is important for us to understand in discussions with secular folks regarding religion.  Just as we cannot prove that God "exists" their lifestyle is based on faith that they are doing the "right" thing that all humanity "should" be doing.  They find happiness in "going against the dominant culture" which they find is taking a wrong turn, and which they hope to preach to the world the rightness of their lifestyle in producing happiness as well as climate change.

What is important is that their lifestyle be "intrinsically fulfilling".  Alma might call that "good fruit" that is "sweet".

Their kids are included in the effort and really they are very devoted and devout people.   I thought the parallels were fascinating- the sacrifices they have made to live their "religion"

It's about a 7 minute video and I think you will find it fascinating to ponder the parallels here.

https://www.kcet.org/shows/socal-connected/energy-saving-family

 

Thanks Bukowski for making me feel miserable.....(Such a great/charming video) I'm convinced going to hell (if there's one) just the way I live....professing to believe in global warming and supporting all energy saving measures.....yet living as gluttonous  as your average American....... Thanks...

[Gray]

10 hours ago, longview said:

Did you notice the caption below the video?

"Energy Saving Family - - - How did an Altadena family cut its energy use by 90%? It helps when the dad is a climate scientist who is committed to doing about global warming. Anchor, Val Zavala, meets Peter Kalmus to find out how and why he felt compelled to shrink his carbon footprint so dramatically."

The "Dad" has a vested interest in this field.  There is a very lucrative governmental system for granting large grants to "politically approved scientists."  Color me cynical but I really don't believe the proponents have any sincere convictions concerning the global warming hysteria.  Excepting those that are deluded into believing "Junk Science."

This is loony tunes.

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

A good way to demonize a secular practice with which you personally disagree is to say that the practitioners are following a false religion.  

No reasonable person who disagrees with the climate change argument would say that climate change proponents are religionists.

As to whether climate change is a legitimate topic of concern, I can surely say it has nothing to do with religion.  The question and evidence for it are debatable but not frivolous. 

 

“Climate change denial should be a crime,” declared the Sept. 1 headline in the Outline. Mark Hertsgaard argued in a Sept. 7 article in the Nation, titled “Climate Denialism Is Literally Killing Us,” that “murder is murder” and “we should punish it as such.”

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/11/climate-change-activists-want-punishment-for-skept/

[Sky]

Climate change actually has everything to do with science and religion when you consider that the poorest countries of the world are the most vulnerable and the least likely to be able to adapt to more extreme weather events, rising seas, and diminishing crop production.  And this all happened because of wealthy nations’ reliance on fossil fuels.  

Truth is truth.  One of the great things about Mormonism is that we can accept truth whatever source it may come from.  Science is one way to better understand the world around us and make our world a better place.  

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, longview said:

Did you notice the caption below the video?

"Energy Saving Family - - - How did an Altadena family cut its energy use by 90%? It helps when the dad is a climate scientist who is committed to doing about global warming. Anchor, Val Zavala, meets Peter Kalmus to find out how and why he felt compelled to shrink his carbon footprint so dramatically."

The "Dad" has a vested interest in this field.  There is a very lucrative governmental system for granting large grants to "politically approved scientists."  Color me cynical but I really don't believe the proponents have any sincere convictions concerning the global warming hysteria.  Excepting those that are deluded into believing "Junk Science."

There is nothing new or revolutionary about any of this particular family's efforts to reduce the overall carbon footprint, and there are no government contracts necessary to do so.  In fact many people who simply live old fashioned lifestyles can do very similar things to reduce family costs, and to reduce climate change.  So any cynicism is completely uncalled for.

Indeed, the die is already cast for future global warming.  We as humans did not take action in time to catch the  problem before it ballooned out of control and into a fait accompli.  Future generations will now be very much worse off, what with large scale droughts, famine, ocean level rise, and increasingly freak weather.  The consequent high death rates, wars, and general chaos will infest the end times, as we all stew in our own juices.  That is the longview.

Edited January 24, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[The Nehor]

14 hours ago, longview said:

Did you notice the caption below the video?

"Energy Saving Family - - - How did an Altadena family cut its energy use by 90%? It helps when the dad is a climate scientist who is committed to doing about global warming. Anchor, Val Zavala, meets Peter Kalmus to find out how and why he felt compelled to shrink his carbon footprint so dramatically."

The "Dad" has a vested interest in this field.  There is a very lucrative governmental system for granting large grants to "politically approved scientists."  Color me cynical but I really don't believe the proponents have any sincere convictions concerning the global warming hysteria.  Excepting those that are deluded into believing "Junk Science."

Recognizing that your climate change denial is junk science and a delusion is the first step. Congratulations!

Edited January 24, 2018 by The Nehor

[CV75]

15 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There is nothing new or revolutionary about any of this particular family's efforts to reduce the overall carbon footprint, and there are no government contracts necessary to do so.  In fact many people who simply live old fashioned lifestyles can so very similar things to reduce family costs, and to reduce climate change.  So any cynicism is completely uncalled for.

Indeed, the die is already cast for future global warming.  We as humans did not take action in time to catch the  problem before it ballooned out of control and into a fait accompli.  Future generations will now be very much worse off, what with large scale droughts, famine, ocean level rise, and increasingly freak weather.  The consequent high death rates, wars, and general chaos will infest the end times, as we all stew in our own juices.  That is the longview.

Speaking of stewing in our own juices, wait until the permafrost starts melting!

[cinepro]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I saw this on our local PBS station here in LA and I was really impressed how devoted this family is to reducing their carbon footprint.

They have built their entire lifestyle on these principles and actually they reminded me a little of LDS people with their "peculiar lifestyles" and even the Amish.  These are two highly educated and intelligent scientists who have married.

Without belief in God, these folks have paralleled a "religious" lifestyle but based upon what they believe is a better world for all of us instead of religion.  They believe that we are one species among all other species, that we owe humanity to have a disciplined lifestyle as perhaps religious people believe they owe God a disciplined lifestyle.

Their children are clearly being raised in this "religion".

The point I would make is to illustrate the FUNCTION of religion in our lives- to live for some higher cause.   I think this is important for us to understand in discussions with secular folks regarding religion.  Just as we cannot prove that God "exists" their lifestyle is based on faith that they are doing the "right" thing that all humanity "should" be doing.  They find happiness in "going against the dominant culture" which they find is taking a wrong turn, and which they hope to preach to the world the rightness of their lifestyle in producing happiness as well as climate change.

What is important is that their lifestyle be "intrinsically fulfilling".  Alma might call that "good fruit" that is "sweet".

Their kids are included in the effort and really they are very devoted and devout people.   I thought the parallels were fascinating- the sacrifices they have made to live their "religion"

It's about a 7 minute video and I think you will find it fascinating to ponder the parallels here.

https://www.kcet.org/shows/socal-connected/energy-saving-family

 

Religious people have strong beliefs that cause them to change their behavior.  These beliefs often appear irrational to people who don't share those beliefs.

This doesn't mean that all beliefs that cause people to change their behavior are by definition "religious", even if you think they're irrational.  There has to be more to "religion" than that. 

Because if there isn't, you've just redefined the word into oblivion.

[Robert F. Smith]

35 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Speaking of stewing in our own juices, wait until the permafrost starts melting!

Yeh, we get both ancient bacteria coming back to life in large quantities, and galloping increases in greenhouse gases -- which is happening how.

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, longview said:

Did you notice the caption below the video?

"Energy Saving Family - - - How did an Altadena family cut its energy use by 90%? It helps when the dad is a climate scientist who is committed to doing about global warming. Anchor, Val Zavala, meets Peter Kalmus to find out how and why he felt compelled to shrink his carbon footprint so dramatically."

The "Dad" has a vested interest in this field.  There is a very lucrative governmental system for granting large grants to "politically approved scientists."  Color me cynical but I really don't believe the proponents have any sincere convictions concerning the global warming hysteria.  Excepting those that are deluded into believing "Junk Science."

yeah I knew that- I was commenting more on the dedication they show to the cause not necessarily the cause itself.

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Perhaps he chose the field because of a deep commitment to environmentalism long before he was getting any financial benefit from it.

You mean like a Mormon taking theology classes?   Makes a lot of sense to me!

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, cacheman said:

I share some of their same beliefs and lifestyle choices.  However, I feel that calling this belief system and resulting lifestyle a 'religion' is a definition of convenience.  I don't believe more than a fraction of theistic religionists in the US would be willing to share the perks of religiosity such as the freedom to exercise my 'religion'.  For example, the house that my wife and I live in is 150 square feet and not connected to the electrical or water grid.  This violates some local laws.  It would go against my 'religious beliefs' to live in a house much larger than I need despite local government mandates.  There will likely come a time when that becomes a legal issue for my wife and I.  If I use a religious freedom argument to plead my case, I don't anticipate much support from theistic religionists. 

I agree that 'moral philosophies' and their attendant lifestyles are like religions, but I'm not a fan of calling beliefs or lifestyles 'religions' unless one is willing to treat them like religions. 

Edited to add that I'm not saying that lifestyles based on moral philosophies should receive preferential treatment.  It would be presumptuous of me to think that my moral philosophy (or religion if you'd prefer) is deserving of rights and protections that aren't afforded to others.

 

Well I am not the one who thought of secularism as a religion- secularists have.  THAT is the point I would really like to explore in this thread.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2013/04/04/religion-without-god/

"They express a conviction that the force and wonder they sense are real, just as real as planets or pain, that moral truth and natural wonder do not simply evoke awe but call for it."

What i really want to explore is that "the force and wonder they sense are real, just as real as planets or pain, that moral truth and natural wonder do not simply evoke awe but call for it."

The important point for us is that for them this is "REAL"

Now I think THAT is "religion"

Quote

Religion Without God

 

Ronald Dworkin

APRIL 4, 2013 ISSUE

Before he died on February 14, Ronald Dworkin sent to The New York Review a text of his new book, Religion Without God, to be published by Harvard University Press later this year. We publish here an excerpt from the first chapter. —The Editors

---

The familiar stark divide between people of religion and without religion is too crude. Many millions of people who count themselves atheists have convictions and experiences very like and just as profound as those that believers count as religious. They say that though they do not believe in a “personal” god, they nevertheless believe in a “force” in the universe “greater than we are.” They feel an inescapable responsibility to live their lives well, with due respect for the lives of others; they take pride in a life they think well lived and suffer sometimes inconsolable regret at a life they think, in retrospect, wasted. They find the Grand Canyon not just arresting but breathtakingly and eerily wonderful. They are not simply interested in the latest discoveries about the vast universe but enthralled by them. These are not, for them, just a matter of immediate sensuous and otherwise inexplicable response. They express a conviction that the force and wonder they sense are real, just as real as planets or pain, that moral truth and natural wonder do not simply evoke awe but call for it.

 

 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

A good way to demonize a secular practice with which you personally disagree is to say that the practitioners are following a false religion.  

No reasonable person who disagrees with the climate change argument would say that climate change proponents are religionists.

As to whether climate change is a legitimate topic of concern, I can surely say it has nothing to do with religion.  The question and evidence for it are debatable but not frivolous. 

 

You are missing the point entirely.

The point is that it FUNCTIONS as a religion to the believers and therefore defines "religion" differently than you have previously seen it.  I didn't invent this idea, just google "secular religions" and see what I mean.

If we are to convert them, they must not see us as wackos but as folks who have a lot of similarities with them.

Think Paul and the "Unknown God".   Paul taught of the unkmown God- we can teach of the Human God as a paradigm for mankind.  The Man of Holiness.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Thanks Bukowski for making me feel miserable.....(Such a great/charming video) I'm convinced going to hell (if there's one) just the way I live....professing to believe in global warming and supporting all energy saving measures.....yet living as gluttonous  as your average American....... Thanks...

Well yes, according to them it IS getting hotter.... 

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

“Climate change denial should be a crime,” declared the Sept. 1 headline in the Outline. Mark Hertsgaard argued in a Sept. 7 article in the Nation, titled “Climate Denialism Is Literally Killing Us,” that “murder is murder” and “we should punish it as such.”

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/11/climate-change-activists-want-punishment-for-skept/

And if that ain't religious fundamentalism, what IS?

Burn the witches!!!

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There is nothing new or revolutionary about any of this particular family's efforts to reduce the overall carbon footprint, and there are no government contracts necessary to do so.  In fact many people who simply live old fashioned lifestyles can do very similar things to reduce family costs, and to reduce climate change.  So any cynicism is completely uncalled for.

Indeed, the die is already cast for future global warming.  We as humans did not take action in time to catch the  problem before it ballooned out of control and into a fait accompli.  Future generations will now be very much worse off, what with large scale droughts, famine, ocean level rise, and increasingly freak weather.  The consequent high death rates, wars, and general chaos will infest the end times, as we all stew in our own juices.  That is the longview.

And here we thought all those biblical prophecies were bunk !!! 

 

[mfbukowski]

52 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Religious people have strong beliefs that cause them to change their behavior.  These beliefs often appear irrational to people who don't share those beliefs.

This doesn't mean that all beliefs that cause people to change their behavior are by definition "religious", even if you think they're irrational.  There has to be more to "religion" than that. 

Because if there isn't, you've just redefined the word into oblivion.

Not me, it is the secularists who are doing it.

So what's your solution, you semi-secularist, you! ?? 

What is the function of religion?